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 678910 15>
Author
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: 09-Mar-2006 at 15:45

""""Except when you said crossbows were prominent against cavalry of course. Changing your stances to make a better argument won't help you any better.""""""

 

I never changed my stance, I posted they were prominent against cavalry since the very beggining, you are just doing selective reading.

 

""""Than why'd you say "cavalry was never dominant?" You can't change your stance to win an argument.>>"""""""

 

What? Sorry, but when one starts to deteriorate into rhetorical debate, one already looses this argument. I clearly distincguished the roles of cavalry in different circumstances, I don't think I need to repeat every phrase in all of my posts. Its called common sense.

 

"""""Must I post again? Here it is once more.>>"""""

 

Here once what? Thats not a fact. Just a bunch of repetition of whats already posted. Where is your scholarly sources? Why don't you just admit the fact that you don't have one concede the fact that your absolutely ridiculous and baseless claim that Romans have superior melee is just part of your pathatic imagination. This BS is just going in circles. You are diverting from the topic.

 

 

"""If you never said it then why should one ¡°assume¡± Han armor is superior because of it? """"

Seriously, you need to get over your inferiority complex. I never said superiority on anything. I only said Han had a superior material quality in the armour. Which is an empirical fact. Blast furnace is simply superior to bloomery furnace.

 

"""You know, I did say low carbonated steel(NOT low carbonated cast iron), so don¡¯t get yourself worked up into a fervor. I did NOT say the blast furnace isn¡¯t superior, but then again, European knights armour never used LOW carbonated steel for armor 100% either, they used iron and at the low carbonated steel. Sometimes seperately, other times they use both for one armour. """"

 

What "LOW" carbonated steel? Han armour is well forged and its carbon is hardly low in content. But since you agreed Han armour is materially superior, what is your point?

 

""""Nope, what was in actuality recorded was ¡°there are 200 infantry guarding the gates¡±. No other enemy numbers found in there."""

 

No, what was recorded was that there was 100 infantry AND 100 cavalry.

 

 

 "Thus, unless EVERYBODY guarded the gate, the number of enemy infantry obviously exceeded 200. And defenders of a wall are also considered infantry, since infantry are by definition soldiers on foot."

 

whatever bro. what ever you want to say, I believe we were talking about open field confrontations. If you want to bring siege into the equation, it still doesn't prove any point regarding to Romans superiority in melee.

 

 

"""An assumption in itself because according to YangHong in Weapons of ancient China, the blast furnace of the Han only created low carbonated steel. High quality steel only came by the bessemer process. Also note that I said low carbon STEEL, NOT low carbon CAST IRON. Here is a quote from:""""

 

Yeah, guess what, the so caleed "low carbonated steel" is just as low as any Medieval European armour, since Europe never had the Bessemer process until the 19th century. The point still been that Han armour is superior in material quality.

 

 

"""Yet it was the Ming generals of the middle ages that wore mail, something a common Roman infantry would wear. I never denied the superiority of the blast furnace, I merely denied that superiority of materials would make up for inferiority of coverage/type of armour in melee. Also a fact.""""

 

Sorry, but the original topic is about armour quality, not its design. Stop diverting the topic. The Ming also were lamellar and Brigandine, it is not completely mail at all, or even dominantly that. Mail has its good parts and bad parts, it is not superior in design, Goths also changed from mail to lamellar, so whats your point? Notice I NEVER said Han had superior armour in general, I only said their superiority in material. It was Conan who first said that Roman armours is alot better, and all I did was challenge that baseless notion.

 

"""And where did Adshead get his sources? I have shown you Needlehams sources on the crossbow, but you did not show me "a single article to back up your assumption". """""

Back what up? Unlike you I never made any baseless claims of superiority. Ashead is a scholar, if you want to play that game, then where did Yang Hong get his sources?

 

 

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: 09-Mar-2006 at 15:52

"""""Yang Hong says that Han had low carbonated steel, and only had the Bessemer process by the last days of the Han(or the Three Kingdoms, basically). THIS is why Adshead said that the Han can outproduce the Romance by both "quantity and quality",""""

No, Adshead mentioned both the blast furnace and the Bessemer. The fact that blast furnace(with cast iron) can outproduce the bloomery in quantity and quality is already demonstrated in history, England's iron production increased by 15 folds because of the change.(and no, at the time England didn't have the Bessemer, so it was just the blast furnace's superiority)

 

"""Also note that the single example Asdhead gave of a Han(unless if you count the 3kingdoms) soldier's superiority of a Roman soldier was the crossbow. Part of your Asdhead's quote which I find important(like what the Bessemer process actually is)is missing, so I'll fill it. """"

And the iron. He didn't mention Han was inferior in anything.

 """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 opponent than the Roman legionnary. For example, it is doubful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese cross-bow. Consequently the Han never suffered a Carrhae or an Adrianople. The capacity to cast iron, in turn, raised the steel production in both quantity and quality. Wrough iron is low in carbon, cast iron is high in carbon, and steel lies in between. For pre-modern 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, i.e. liquifying the iron while simultaneiously blowing away part of the carbon."""""

Yes they are indeed facts, but sadly your claim that Romans have superior melee is not a fact, but an assumption.

"""That statement is an assumption by itself, for it is not backed up by a fact.""""

Whats an assumpition? The fact that Blast furnace is superior? No thats a fact. The fact that Han crossbows can shoot further and harder? No thats a fact. With such a critical tone, Why don't you back yourself up for once?

""""An assumption, since Roman infantry had 1-2 pilums per man, depending on the circumstances. That is a perfect example of equal arms in proportion.""""""

umm, no. I don't think you know what equal arms in propotion even means. Its a single cohersive unit of troops(not individuals) that contain different arms in proportion to each other, such as 10 spear: 5 swords:  10 Ji in a single unit. Rome does NOT have this. Its single unit has the same equipment throughout. ITs the different units that have different equipment, yet the dominant Roman infantry arm is still the gladius.

 

 

"""Your claim of crossbows are never dominant means that it have to encompass everything, both infantry and cavalry. Fact. """"

No, I already posted its against cavalry, stop been a nitpick in precise wordings, thats very low.

 

"""The whole argument started on the Xiong nu v crossbow thing anyways, so I don't know where you are going with the infantry v crossbow.""""

No, I don't think you get it, the whole point is your baseless claim that Romans have superior melee. Which is why its about infantry, not cavalry. And so far, you still haven't backed that up.

 

 """"You are the one that is speaking in circles. Actually, it's more like speaking in a dot(this is an assumption, that is an assuption, those are assumptions, even though it is clearly facts. There's not really a this and that and this and that. It's more of a this and this and this and this). I have already proven it, don't make me past it again the third time. If anything your previous paragraph is the one doing the "diverting".""""

 

Irony, proven what? Where is your source? All you've said is how the Han superiority in weaponry is not that much superior. And the fact that Han did not train with weapons twice as heavy as Rome. I hardly call that "Prove" if you know what a scholarly means. I never declared Han superiority in melee, you did. Its not my responsibility to prove that, its yours. And you are doing a very poor job, if you are doing any job at all that is.

"""Yet flanking is something extremely hard to do depending on the terrain. But even in these conditions Han had light infantry. Tactical preference is not random, but is dictated by weapos technology. The preference for speed only means that weapons(especially ranged) technology exceeded armour technology. That is a fact, with examples from modern times to ancient times. """"

And in different terrain, the composition would be different, did you think that 40 percent applies to every Han army?

 

"""You know, not reading and being rude only makes yourself look bad. I asked for descriptions of battles dictated by combined arms or melee, and when you gave me battles without that information, I asked for it. Now you are asking yourself that? Why'd you even list the battles than? """"

 

Irony again, its your problem for not reading, not mine, its also very rude for making up lies about things I never posted.

 

""""btw, you did say that the battles have no mention of the crossbow. That's were you said the former."""

It didm't. I alerady showed you the three battles.

"""Perhpas humiliation can only be directed at the one that's trying to humiliate""""

And that would be you.

 

""""Again, there is no mention of ANY weapons. Way to go, people fought without weapons back then I guess."""

Irrelevant, the point is between melee and missile, and melee was mentioned, missile was not.

 

"""You missed the joke completely didn't you? You said that I quoted from some other "idiot", but that person turned out to be you. That's the joke, not saying you're an idiot or anything."""

 

You didn't get me did you, I was been cold, because that other person wasn't me. Since I never posted anything regarding to superiority of Han melee or siege.

 

"""Considering that there are many battles between all nations of the Warring States, it is apalling that you expect me to know the battle you are talking about just by stating the countries. It is also apalling that you accuse me of not knowing texts when WuYue was a king of a minor kingdoms during the Tang dynasty. The simianlike rudeness is further degrative toward yourself.""""

You don't know the texts, thats why you didn't know I was talking about Wu and Yue of the warring states and their battle.

 

""The major clue of someone losing an argument is that he starts attacking the guy instead of the argument itself. This is because he can only deny the facts by demeaning his oponent, as if that magically makes the facts into "assumptions" and assumptions into "facts" somehow."""

 

Even more crucial is the one who can't even provide facts yet claim he does. And also the fact that he is diverting from the main point of the discussion. Because he can't back it up, he decides to be rhetorical.

 I attack both person and argument. The argument for been ridiculous, and the person for been stubborn.

 



Edited by honeybee
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: 09-Mar-2006 at 20:23

"""""But by saying both you contradicted yourself.

Now you are just been rhetorical, I don't want to degenerate into this lowly discussion. I think you know when I said it I meant infantry, since that was just about what I have said throughout the whole thread.

Here¡¯s a quote from honeybee: ¡°It was NEVER the dominant arm. Period.¡±>>

And now here¡¯s another quote from honeybee: ¡°I never said crossbows aren't prominent against cavalry, Omnipotence, I said they are never prominent against infantry!¡±>>

Never means never, not ¡°sometimes¡±. That¡¯s why people should use vague words more often, it helps in business. >>

""""And no mention of swords, Ji, etc... were mentioned as well. How wonderfully biased. I asked for an example of combined arms, and since none are mentioned, and by using your logic, none were used. Great, just great."""""">>

We don't need to, the topic is melee, and the source mention that they charged at each other, what did you think they used in close up fighting, quivers? You make a poor attempt at comback, just admit the fact that you already lost this debate, the fact is, melee is more important than missile. And you cannot twist out of this one no matter what.>>

Too bad the word ¡°charged¡± was used once in the entire article "And ordered the Chu left to charge forth and meet the Jin right".
. The proper word that appeared most of the time was ¡°engaged¡±, ¡°meet¡±, ¡°engagement¡±, "intercept" all of which can include any number of weapons. Heck, even in a charge people can still use ranged weaponry. Besides, clearly missle weapons was used during this battle anyway(although I doubt the crossbow was, since it wasn't invented yet). Ironically it came from you "Bai Yibing wounded Dou Bo on his face with an arrow. Dou Bo abandoned the field with the arrow on his cheek. The right of Chu was crushed. " The mention of chariots also means that missle weapon was used, since the typical chariot includes one Ji polearm, one bowman(maybe crossbowman if it was of later periods), and one driver.
 Wise words: The better debater does not accuse his opponent of ¡°losing the argument¡±. He instead accuses his opponent¡¯s view, beyond saying stuff like ¡°it¡¯s stupid¡±. Again, I have to mention for the third time that you are, once again, mentioning a battle in which crossbows were either not invented or not mass introduced. Ignore that fact and you might as well list all the killings from the stone age and say swords weren't used.

""""That's what I asked for, and because of this, so far you haven't answered. 

No thats not what you asked for, You posted this,

"Lol, maybe you should stop making stuff up. Where does it show that "arrows/bolts weren't used"? Where does it show that it was 100% melee? Where did the sources come from? Can't answer and you're making it up. "

Did you even forgot what you posted? You never asked me about combined arms in proportion, you asked me about melee. And I gave it to you, face it, you are wrong. The further that you try to cover up your mistake, the lower your dignity becomes.

What¡¯s up with covering up facts and accusing me of it? THIS is what I posted: ¡°First off you fully well know the fact that Chinese history have scarce, if any, records on specifically which weapons were used during a battle. Maybe you should describe a battle to me in which only combined arms were used(there are many, obviously, but there won't be quotes on it).¡±>>

Then honeybee posted: ¡°How about battle of Bi, battle of Cheng Pu, battle of Wu Yue, battle of Han Xin against the Zhao, they are all melee. FAce it you do not know what you are talking about, dig further into Chinese military history, try those published by the PRC and ROC.¡±>>

And in reply Omniptence posted: ¡°Lol, maybe you should stop making stuff up. Where does it show that "arrows/bolts weren't used"? Where does it show that it was 100% melee? Where did the sources come from? Can't answer and you're making it up. It is well known that weapons discription in a battle aren't focused as much in ancient Chinese primary sources of the time. However, what I find most appalling is that both the battle of Bi and the battle of ChengPu was before 500BC, which is before the formal introduction of the crossbow(most sources say the crossbow was invented by 500BC, but all say that crossbows weren't widespread in the military before 500BC). WuYue was a kingdom during the later Tang dynasty, way after the Han dynasty(amazingly the Tang actually lost crossbow technology). For morality's sake I hope you didn't know what I stated in the latter two sentences when you posted the examples, else that would simply make you a cheap bastard, to be blunt. If you didn't know the time period, than please accept my apologies.¡±>>

>

""""Except when you said crossbows were prominent against cavalry of course. Changing your stances to make a better argument won't help you any better."""""">>

 >>

I never changed my stance, I posted they were prominent against cavalry since the very beggining, you are just doing selective reading

 

Here¡¯s a quote from honeybee: ¡°It was NEVER the dominant arm. Period.¡±

Selective reading? If you consider finding contradictions selective reading, then yes, I do very much selective reading. I can't help doing "selective reading" if you post one thing and when I contradict it you said you posted something else.

>

""""Than why'd you say "cavalry was never dominant?" You can't change your stance to win an argument.

 

What? Sorry, but when one starts to deteriorate into rhetorical debate, one already looses this argument. I clearly distincguished the roles of cavalry in different circumstances, I don't think I need to repeat every phrase in all of my posts. Its called common sense.

 

1) It takes two people to deteriorate an argument into a rhetorical debate.

2) My bad on the cavalry thing. What I meant was why¡¯d you say ¡°crossbow was never dominant¡±. But then again, you should have figured that out through logic because I was replying to the post ¡°Nope, I clearly said crossbow is very effective for cavalry, just not for infantry.¡±

 

"""""Must I post again? Here it is once more.

 

Here once what? Thats not a fact. Just a bunch of repetition of whats already posted. Where is your scholarly sources? Why don't you just admit the fact that you don't have one concede the fact that your absolutely ridiculous and baseless claim that Romans have superior melee is just part of your pathatic imagination. This BS is just going in circles. You are diverting from the topic.

 

Do I really NEED a scholarly source to say that "you compared lorica segmentata to tongxiu armour¡±. It is common knowledge(at least for military historians) that wrought iron is much more bendable than cast iron/steel. This is because its carbon content is only about 0.5%. It¡¯s also a fact that most Han soldiers wear leather caps rather than steel/iron helmets, as according to terra cotta finds. Seriously, if you want ¡°scholarly articles¡±, do a google or amazon search, and you¡¯ll get plenty. I¡¯ll paste my ¡°facts¡± again. This time if you really have to, tell me the exact sentence in which you want a scholarly fact, that is if you can¡¯t find one yourself. If you think it¡¯s ¡°rhetoric¡±, than you shouldn¡¯t even mention it in the first place, else it¡¯s hypocritical, because you are contributing to it.>>

Quote:""Because your "facts" never included with my "facts". Don't you see that your "imperial facts" are totally out of tune? Comparing the best and rarest armor in both armies are "facts", but they are irrelevant precisely because they are the rarest. You compared the Lorica Segementata to TongXiu armor. That's a fact. You assumed that Chinese armor is "superior" because it's made of low carbonated steel, when in reality wrought iron gives gives way more on impact meaning more durability. That's a fact. Mail and scale are worn most by the Romans while lamellar is mostly worn by Han soldiers. That's a fact. Han helmets are usually only a leather cap while Roman helmets are not. That's also a fact. Tactical distributions is used as well in Rome(pilum and gladius, spear and gladius, etc...), but you said that Han ones had better tactical distributions(and random things like long swords make better thrusts). That's an assumption. "">>

"""If you never said it then why should one ¡°assume¡± Han armor is superior because of it? """"

Seriously, you need to get over your inferiority complex. I never said superiority on anything. I only said Han had a superior material quality in the armour. Which is an empirical fact. Blast furnace is simply superior to bloomery furnace.

I never denied that the material used was inferior. What I denied was when you said:

¡°Han armour is superior precisely because it came out of the blast furnace.¡± -honeybee

Han armour is superior in material because of this, but that does not mean overall armour superiority.

 

"""You know, I did say low carbonated steel(NOT low carbonated cast iron), so don¡¯t get yourself worked up into a fervor. I did NOT say the blast furnace isn¡¯t superior, but then again, European knights armour never used LOW carbonated steel for armor 100% either, they used iron and at the low carbonated steel. Sometimes seperately, other times they use both for one armour. """"

What "LOW" carbonated steel? Han armour is well forged and its carbon is hardly low in content. But since you agreed Han armour is materially superior, what is your point?

 

¡°LOW¡± carbonated steel is steel that came out of the blast furnace without the help of the Bessemer process. Perhaps the reason I mentioned that the Han dynasty never developed the Bessemer process until their very last days is because I like to pass information around instead of saying ¡°who's military is superior¡±.

""""Nope, what was in actuality recorded was ¡°there are 200 infantry guarding the gates¡±. No other enemy numbers found in there."""

No, what was recorded was that there was 100 infantry AND 100 cavalry.

 If there are only 100 infantry and 100 cavalry, then there wouldn¡¯t be more than a thousand killed(KIA from Ancient&Medieval Warfare). Since the Han Chinese captured 145 Romans(stated by the article Rome, China, and Roman Li Chien) to use as border guards, it would mean that less than 40 died in the battle. Also explain to me how you will guard a city with 100 infantry. Not possible. Also note that the cavalry was said to be used to attack the Han camp(and was driven back), and was not mentioned to "guard" anything such as walls or palisades.

 "Thus, unless EVERYBODY guarded the gate, the number of enemy infantry obviously exceeded 200. And defenders of a wall are also considered infantry, since infantry are by definition soldiers on foot."

whatever bro. what ever you want to say, I believe we were talking about open field confrontations. If you want to bring siege into the equation, it still doesn't prove any point regarding to Romans superiority in melee.

Roman superiority in melee is not what my argument was completely about, but only part of it. In open field confrontations(completely FLAT grassland), I actually think that Han melee infantry would have the advantage if they are not meeting head on. However, overall, when considering all the terrains, I would say that Roman melee infantry do indeed have the upper hand.

"""An assumption in itself because according to YangHong in Weapons of ancient China, the blast furnace of the Han only created low carbonated steel. High quality steel only came by the bessemer process. Also note that I said low carbon STEEL, NOT low carbon CAST IRON. Here is a quote from:""""

Yeah, guess what, the so caleed "low carbonated steel" is just as low as any Medieval European armour, since lace>Europelace> never had the Bessemer process until the 19th century. The point still been that Han armour is superior in material quality.

Note that the bloomery process was replaced by the iron smelting process by the 14th century, which according to Van der Merwe was an indirect process to create steel. I do agree with you that Han armour is superior in terms of material quality.

"""Yet it was the Ming generals of the middle ages that wore mail, something a common Roman infantry would wear. I never denied the superiority of the blast furnace, I merely denied that superiority of materials would make up for inferiority of coverage/type of armour in melee. Also a fact.""""

Sorry, but the original topic is about armour quality, not its design. Stop diverting the topic. The Ming also were lamellar and Brigandine, it is not completely mail at all, or even dominantly that. Mail has its good parts and bad parts, it is not superior in design, Goths also changed from mail to lamellar, so whats your point? Notice I NEVER said Han had superior armour in general, I only said their superiority in material. It was Conan who first said that Roman armours is alot better, and all I did was challenge that baseless notion

 

I am talking of Ming generals and those of higher rank, not the common Ming soldier. Mail is superior in design but is also incredibly hard to make, so it is economically draining. In fact you did say that Han had superior armor in general, but mostly you backed it up with their superiority in material.

"""And where did Adshead get his sources? I have shown you Needlehams sources on the crossbow, but you did not show me "a single article to back up your assumption". """""

Back what up? Unlike you I never made any baseless claims of superiority. Ashead is a scholar, if you want to play that game, then where did Yang Hong get his sources?

If scholars are ¡°right¡± because they said so, then hell, I¡¯ll be a scholar too. Yang Hong got his sources from Xiahou Yang Suan Jing, the Daxia Longqie knife and other materials from a ¡°Northern Wei iron smelting workshop in Shengchi County, Henan¡±, and Eastern Han materials ¡°unearthed in¡± ¡°Xuzhou in 1978¡±, ¡°the tomb of Emperor Liu Sheng in Mancheng, Hebei¡± and the ¡°city site of the Han Dynasty at Ershijiaji of Huhhot(Huhehot)¡±.

"""""Yang Hong says that Han had low carbonated steel, and only had the Bessemer process by the last days of the Han(or the Three Kingdoms, basically). THIS is why Adshead said that the Han can outproduce the Romance by both "quantity and quality",""""

No, Adshead mentioned both the blast furnace and the Bessemer. The fact that blast furnace(with cast iron) can outproduce the bloomery in quantity and quality is already demonstrated in history, England's iron production increased by 15 folds because of the change.(and no, at the time England didn't have the Bessemer, so it was just the blast furnace's superiority)

I realize that Adshead ¡°mentioned have both the blast furnace and the lace>Bessemerlace>¡±. What he failed to mention was that the lace>Bessemerlace> only came from the last days of the Han. >>

 >>

"""Also note that the single example Asdhead gave of a Han(unless if you count the 3kingdoms) soldier's superiority of a Roman soldier was the crossbow. Part of your Asdhead's quote which I find important(like what the Bessemer process actually is)is missing, so I'll fill it. """">>

And the iron. He didn't mention Han was inferior in anything.>>

Actually he mentioned quit a lot of Han inferiority to Romans in certain subjects. But since the mentioned had nothing to do with military, it is of no importance to the topic.>>

 """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 opponent than the Roman legionnary. For example, it is doubful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese cross-bow. Consequently the Han never suffered a Carrhae or an lace>Adrianoplelace>. The capacity to cast iron, in turn, raised the steel production in both quantity and quality. Wrough iron is low in carbon, cast iron is high in carbon, and steel lies in between. For pre-modern 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, i.e. liquifying the iron while simultaneiously blowing away part of the carbon.""""">>

Yes they are indeed facts, but sadly your claim that Romans have superior melee is not a fact, but an assumption.>>

"""That statement is an assumption by itself, for it is not backed up by a fact."""">>

Whats an assumpition? The fact that Blast furnace is superior? No thats a fact. The fact that Han crossbows can shoot further and harder? No thats a fact. With such a critical tone, Why don't you back yourself up for once?>>

I did a million times by now. Must I do it again? Oh wait, Romans using mail and scale are ASSUMPTIONS. Han soldiers using mostly leather caps instead of iron helmets are ASSUMPTIONS. The existence of Roman training weapons and the nonexistence of Han training weapons are ASSUMPTIONS. Notice the irony? The first is common sense. The second is shown by terra cota figures and archeology. 

""""An assumption, since Roman infantry had 1-2 pilums per man, depending on the circumstances. That is a perfect example of equal arms in proportion.""""""

umm, no. I don't think you know what equal arms in propotion even means. Its a single cohersive unit of troops(not individuals) that contain different arms in proportion to each other, such as 10 spear: 5 swords:  10 Ji in a single unit. lace>Romelace> does NOT have this. Its single unit has the same equipment throughout. ITs the different units that have different equipment, yet the dominant Roman infantry arm is still the gladius.

You would get it right if you havn¡¯t excluded individuals. Equal proportion in arms include both individuals and groups. If equal arms in proportion is indeed applied only to the group, than how would it be superior to lace>Romelace>(who made individuals carry more than one weapon)? Wouldn¡¯t a Roman army have the ability to produce the same effect of equal arms in proportion by having some units switch their weapon of use? This can be seen in which(according to Osprey) Chinese infantry would drop their Ji to unsheath their short swords in order to rush another Ji wielding formation. The first line of swordsmen would probably topple but the second line would crush the enemy forces.>>

"""Your claim of crossbows are never dominant means that it have to encompass everything, both infantry and cavalry. Fact. """">>

No, I already posted its against cavalry, stop been a nitpick in precise wordings, thats very low.>>

You also posted that it wasn¡¯t. I wouldn¡¯t be ¡°nitpicking¡± if you¡¯ve admitted that or said it¡¯s a typo or something. But because you said that you never said it, I am forced to give you your own quote in order to show you.>>

 >>

"""The whole argument started on the Xiong nu v crossbow thing anyways, so I don't know where you are going with the infantry v crossbow."""">>

No, I don't think you get it, the whole point is your baseless claim that Romans have superior melee. Which is why its about infantry, not cavalry. And so far, you still haven't backed that up.>>

So this is why it all ties in isn¡¯t it? Han crossbows aren¡¯t prominent in Han warfare because we are comparing Roman military with Han military? I never said that the Han dynasty would use crossbows as a dominant arm if they ever encountered the Romans. Frankly, I don¡¯t know which weapon they would use, but you have to look at how Han warfare is conducted.>>

 """"You are the one that is speaking in circles. Actually, it's more like speaking in a dot(this is an assumption, that is an assuption, those are assumptions, even though it is clearly facts. There's not really a this and that and this and that. It's more of a this and this and this and this). I have already proven it, don't make me past it again the third time. If anything your previous paragraph is the one doing the "diverting"."""">>

 >>

Irony, proven what? Where is your source? All you've said is how the Han superiority in weaponry is not that much superior. And the fact that Han did not train with weapons twice as heavy as lace>Romelace>. I hardly call that "Prove" if you know what a scholarly means. I never declared Han superiority in melee, you did. Its not my responsibility to prove that, its yours. And you are doing a very poor job, if you are doing any job at all that is.>>

Of course you are not declaring Han superiority in melee, you are merely denying Roman superiority in infantry melee. And no, I¡¯m not doing any job, since debating with you and putting up with your overconfidence on my ¡°stupidity¡± isn¡¯t my proffession. If training weapons, armour design, helmet design/material, and armour percentage doesn¡¯t prove anything, what do you want information on in order to convince you of lace>Romelace>¡¯s superiority of melee?>>

"""Yet flanking is something extremely hard to do depending on the terrain. But even in these conditions Han had light infantry. Tactical preference is not random, but is dictated by weapos technology. The preference for speed only means that weapons(especially ranged) technology exceeded armour technology. That is a fact, with examples from modern times to ancient times. """">>

And in different terrain, the composition would be different, did you think that 40 percent applies to every Han army?>>

Yet pretty much every major excavation of terra cotta figures around China show that Han unarmored infantry would be at least 50% of the army.

"""You know, not reading and being rude only makes yourself look bad. I asked for descriptions of battles dictated by combined arms or melee, and when you gave me battles without that information, I asked for it. Now you are asking yourself that? Why'd you even list the battles than? """"

Irony again, its your problem for not reading, not mine, its also very rude for making up lies about things I never posted.>>

Actually, since there are so many contradictions with your posts, I have to say that you don¡¯t even read your own posts. It¡¯s not lies if you¡¯ll read back. But then again I already gave some of your quotes on this in the beg of this post.

""""btw, you did say that the battles have no mention of the crossbow. That's were you said the former.""

It didm't. I alerady showed you the three battles.

"""Perhpas humiliation can only be directed at the one that's trying to humiliate""""

And that would be you.

So now you are assuming that I am trying to humiliate you. Even though you are the one that¡¯s trying to humiliate me. Great, just great. 

""""

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: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:16

""""Never means never, not ¡°sometimes¡±. That¡¯s why people should use vague words more often, it helps in business. >>"""

Yes thats what I said, which means that you are doing selective reading by choosing the former. I assumed we are talking about infantry because that was the original discussion. Its not my problem that you choose to divert from that topic because you failed to back yourself up.

 

We don't need to, the topic is melee, and the source mention that they charged at each other, what did you think they used in close up fighting, quivers? You make a poor attempt at comback, just admit the fact that you already lost this debate, the fact is, melee is more important than missile. And you cannot twist out of this one no matter what.>>

""""Too bad the word ¡°charged¡± was used once in the entire article "And ordered the Chu left to charge forth and meet the Jin right"."""""

No, the Jin also charged at the Cheng and Cai armies. Once or not, the term missile is never mentioned, the combat is melee based. Face it, you are wrong.


"""The proper word that appeared most of the time was ¡°engaged¡±, ¡°meet¡±, ¡°engagement¡±, "intercept" all of which can include any number of weapons. Heck, even in a charge people can still use ranged weaponry.""""

No, I'm sorry, but your lousy attempt at covering your self is extremely poor. I never denied that range weapons were used. But decisive result is still close combat. From a pincer attack movement. The battle is melee based, its that simple.

 

"""Besides, clearly missle weapons was used during this battle anyway(although I doubt the crossbow was, since it wasn't invented yet). Ironically it came from you "Bai Yibing wounded Dou Bo on his face with an arrow. Dou Bo abandoned the field with the arrow on his cheek. The right of Chu was crushed. """""

Not ironic at all, the right of Chu was crushed by a charge from melee, not missiles.

 


 

""" Wise words: The better debater does not accuse his opponent of ¡°losing the argument¡±. He instead accuses his opponent¡¯s view, beyond saying stuff like ¡°it¡¯s stupid¡±. Again, I have to mention for the third time that you are, once again, mentioning a battle in which crossbows were either not invented or not mass introduced. Ignore that fact and you might as well list all the killings from the stone age and say swords weren't used. """"

I don't care about debate, I only care about facts. And I will attack those that are cannot back their own claims up and insist on their accuracy.

 

 

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: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:30

""""What¡¯s up with covering up facts and accusing me of it? THIS is what I posted: ¡°First off you fully well know the fact that Chinese history have scarce, if any, records on specifically which weapons were used during a battle. Maybe you should describe a battle to me in which only combined arms were used(there are many, obviously, but there won't be quotes on it).¡±>>""""""

Then you are not reading from the previous posts, because the topic is about melee. And I simply ignored all your diversions from the original topic.

 

"""Here¡¯s a quote from honeybee: ¡°It was NEVER the dominant arm. Period.¡±""""

 

The topic is on infantry, if you bothered to read those posts before. Right now you are just been selective.

 

""""Selective reading? If you consider finding contradictions selective reading, then yes, I do very much selective reading. I can't help doing "selective reading" if you post one thing and when I contradict it you said you posted something else. """"

 

Yes selective reading, have you not realize the whole topic is about infantry melee because you claimed Romans have superiority in this area. Why don't you stay on topic and stop jumping around, its obvious that you already lost since you can't answer that and needs to use diversion as a tool.

 

 

 

 

 

"""""Do I really NEED a scholarly source to say that "you compared lorica segmentata to tongxiu armour¡±. It is common knowledge(at least for military historians) that wrought iron is much more bendable than cast iron/steel. This is because its carbon content is only about 0.5%."""""

 

 

So? A good weapon is a combination of bendability and hardness, of which Han steel is superior. And I have my scholarly source to back myself up, you don't.

 

 ""It¡¯s also a fact that most Han soldiers wear leather caps rather than steel/iron helmets, as according to terra cotta finds.""""

 

 

Terracota finds date from Qin and western Han. Sorry, but Eastern Han armour are purely steel. My source came from the 5,000 year of Chinese weaponry published in ShangHai.

 

 

""""Seriously, if you want ¡°scholarly articles¡±, do a google or amazon search, and you¡¯ll get plenty. I¡¯ll paste my ¡°facts¡± again. This time if you really have to, tell me the exact sentence in which you want a scholarly fact, that is if you can¡¯t find one yourself. If you think it¡¯s ¡°rhetoric¡±, than you shouldn¡¯t even mention it in the first place, else it¡¯s hypocritical, because you are contributing to it.>>""""

 

I prefer much more professional sources than these begginners introduction.

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: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:49

 

""""I never denied that the material used was inferior. What I denied was when you said:

¡°Han armour is superior precisely because it came out of the blast furnace.¡± -honeybee

Han armour is superior in material because of this, but that does not mean overall armour superiority.""""""

 

Selective reading again, you seem to have the habit of picking a single post without looking back at the whole topic, which is focus on material not overall design.

 

 

""""LOW¡± carbonated steel is steel that came out of the blast furnace without the help of the Bessemer process. Perhaps the reason I mentioned that the Han dynasty never developed the Bessemer process until their very last days is because I like to pass information around instead of saying ¡°who's military is superior¡±."""""

 

I still want to know your point. I don't like to speculate about superiority and inferioirty either, but whats a tehcnological superiority is a given fact. And I state facts. I don't force equality on armies(if you want to be selective again, I mean weaponry quality in material here) when they are not equal.

 

 

 """"If there are only 100 infantry and 100 cavalry, then there wouldn¡¯t be more than a thousand killed(KIA from Ancient&Medieval Warfare). Since the Han Chinese captured 145 Romans(stated by the article Rome, China, and Roman Li Chien) to use as border guards, it would mean that less than 40 died in the battle. """""

 

The rest are siege units, for the third time.

 

 

"""""Also explain to me how you will guard a city with 100 infantry. Not possible. Also note that the cavalry was said to be used to attack the Han camp(and was driven back), and was not mentioned to "guard" anything such as walls or palisades."""""

 

They didn't, the infantry here refers to the field infantry. The cavalry belongs to the Kang Ju, which number over 10,000 not the xiongnu.

 

 

 

"""Roman superiority in melee is not what my argument was completely about, but only part of it."""""

 

 

And I am only arguing against this, its baseless.

 

 

"""""In open field confrontations(completely FLAT grassland), I actually think that Han melee infantry would have the advantage if they are not meeting head on. However, overall, when considering all the terrains, I would say that Roman melee infantry do indeed have the upper hand.""""""

 

 

Whats overall? Still covering yourself up? There are more open areas in the old world political centers than there are compacted terrains. Open fields range from the western Manchuria steppe all the way to Eastern Europe down to Persia, and into Egypt and northern Africa. So if we are speaking of overall, it would not be compacted terrains which Rome might have a superiority in.

 

 

"""Yet it was the Ming generals of the middle ages that wore mail, something a common Roman infantry would wear. I never denied the superiority of the blast furnace, I merely denied that superiority of materials would make up for inferiority of coverage/type of armour in melee. Also a fact.""""

Sorry, but the original topic is about armour quality, not its design. Stop diverting the topic. The Ming also were lamellar and Brigandine, it is not completely mail at all, or even dominantly that. Mail has its good parts and bad parts, it is not superior in design, Goths also changed from mail to lamellar, so whats your point? Notice I NEVER said Han had superior armour in general, I only said their superiority in material. It was Conan who first said that Roman armours is alot better, and all I did was challenge that baseless notion

 

"""I am talking of Ming generals and those of higher rank, not the common Ming soldier. Mail is superior in design but is also incredibly hard to make, so it is economically draining. In fact you did say that Han had superior armor in general, but mostly you backed it up with their superiority in material. """"

 

The top Ming general did not wear mail, but a star shaped lamellar armour that function like a full chest plate. These armour takes much more man power and time to built. I never said Han had superior armour in general. We were talking about material, and I merely omitted the obvious in my sentence. I don't want to dwell on this rhetorical debate any further. Just move on with the facts.

Since I don't see that you have much disagreement with me, the whole pointless argument is only over rhetorical debates. I wouldn't bother reading the rest.

 

 

 

 

""""This is called for another Fact: you have a bloated confidence. Snap out of the fantasy world. I have "facts" just as much, if not more, than you do. """"""

Nope, I am confident because my sources are far more reliable than yours, I use primary sources, professional Chinese published articles. I don't use webpages(unless they are from Chinese news) to back my claims.

"""Needleham(prominence of missle weapons) shows this. A crapload of primary sources(crossbows as a prominent weapon) shows this. """""

No, they don't. Primary sources show that crossbow is not a prominent weapon(overall). And never the prominent against infantry(happy?).




Edited by honeybee
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:15
In general, Han technology in metal weaponry was superior to the Romans'. I think it is very difficult to dispute this fact.

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.

Also, only a small part of combat effectiveness has to do with weaponry, which is usually an overrated aspect of ancient warfare, In my opinion.

Most of large scale success and failure in warfare in the ancient world was not a direct consequence of weaponry, but a consequence of state power. For example, how can you except the Romans to conquer the Han if they couldn't even permanently conquer a country as small as scotland. A similar observation can be made for China, replacing scotland with Korea.



Edited by Imperator Invictus
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: 12-Mar-2006 at 21:32

""""Never means never, not ¡°sometimes¡±. That¡¯s why people should use vague words more often, it helps in business. >>"""

Yes thats what I said, which means that you are doing selective reading by choosing the former. I assumed we are talking about infantry because that was the original discussion. Its not my problem that you choose to divert from that topic because you failed to back yourself up.

The original discussion is about who would win in a war if Rome and Han was right next to each other. Topics get diverted into sections, infantry, cavalry, crossbow, economy, navy, etc... If you want to stick to the "original" topic, than by all means. But that would mean not talking about infantry.

We don't need to, the topic is melee, and the source mention that they charged at each other, what did you think they used in close up fighting, quivers? You make a poor attempt at comback, just admit the fact that you already lost this debate, the fact is, melee is more important than missile. And you cannot twist out of this one no matter what.>>

""""Too bad the word ¡°charged¡± was used once in the entire article "And ordered the Chu left to charge forth and meet the Jin right"."""""

No, the Jin also charged at the Cheng and Cai armies. Once or not, the term missile is never mentioned, the combat is melee based. Face it, you are wrong.

Actually you should face the fact that once again, crossbows were not invented by the battle period. Why do you keep ignoring this part? And there is also the fact that a charge still do not have any mention of melee weapons as well, since one can both charge and use any number of weapons. Fact, as shown by the Flying General against the Hxiong Nu.

btw, there are mention of rnaged weaponry in this battle: Bai Yibing wounded Dou Bo on his face with an arrow. Dou Bo abandoned the field with the arrow on his cheek. The right of Chu was crushed.


"""The proper word that appeared most of the time was ¡°engaged¡±, ¡°meet¡±, ¡°engagement¡±, "intercept" all of which can include any number of weapons. Heck, even in a charge people can still use ranged weaponry.""""

No, I'm sorry, but your lousy attempt at covering your self is extremely poor. I never denied that range weapons were used. But decisive result is still close combat. From a pincer attack movement. The battle is melee based, its that simple.

What a "lousy" assumption. How is it poor? In fact, you still ignore the fact that crossbows were not invented.

"""Besides, clearly missle weapons was used during this battle anyway(although I doubt the crossbow was, since it wasn't invented yet). Ironically it came from you "Bai Yibing wounded Dou Bo on his face with an arrow. Dou Bo abandoned the field with the arrow on his cheek. The right of Chu was crushed. """""

Not ironic at all, the right of Chu was crushed by a charge from melee, not missiles.

Your proof? That they charged?

""" Wise words: The better debater does not accuse his opponent of ¡°losing the argument¡±. He instead accuses his opponent¡¯s view, beyond saying stuff like ¡°it¡¯s stupid¡±. Again, I have to mention for the third time that you are, once again, mentioning a battle in which crossbows were either not invented or not mass introduced. Ignore that fact and you might as well list all the killings from the stone age and say swords weren't used. """"

I don't care about debate, I only care about facts. And I will attack those that are cannot back their own claims up and insist on their accuracy.

You know, maybe the MODERATORS can come and say something? There two types of discussions. One is by insult, which embarreses yourself. The other is knowledge and mutual respect, which attains information for the good of all.

""""What¡¯s up with covering up facts and accusing me of it? THIS is what I posted: ¡°First off you fully well know the fact that Chinese history have scarce, if any, records on specifically which weapons were used during a battle. Maybe you should describe a battle to me in which only combined arms were used(there are many, obviously, but there won't be quotes on it).¡±>>""""""

Then you are not reading from the previous posts, because the topic is about melee. And I simply ignored all your diversions from the original topic.

There are a million topics in this discussion. It is not up for any one person to change the subject of one topic to a previous one.

The topic is on infantry, if you bothered to read those posts before. Right now you are just been selective.

You were the one arguing with me on this topic, and now if you want to change it, fine. But you can't accuse me of "staying off topic" for it. That's just hypocritical for we had a debate on many non-infantry topics. No one has the importance to magically be able to change a topic not to their liking. 

 

"""""Do I really NEED a scholarly source to say that "you compared lorica segmentata to tongxiu armour¡±. It is common knowledge(at least for military historians) that wrought iron is much more bendable than cast iron/steel. This is because its carbon content is only about 0.5%."""""

 

 

So? A good weapon is a combination of bendability and hardness, of which Han steel is superior. And I have my scholarly source to back myself up, you don't.

The lorica segmentata isn't a weapon, nor is the tongxiu amour(that's why we call it armour).  I don't need scholarly sources to prove the superiority of Roman weapons because I don't believe they are superior in the first place.

 

 

Terracota finds date from Qin and western Han. Sorry, but Eastern Han armour are purely steel. My source came from the 5,000 year of Chinese weaponry published in ShangHai.

 

Actually, there are numerous terrac cota finds from the Eastern Han as well(Yang Hong have good examples). Eastern Han armour would be MOSTLY(not purely) steel, and that is only if you count helmet out of the armour category. There are leather armour in the Eastern Han, worn by those armoured troops that need speed the most. Having armour that are "purely steel" would make it a disadvantage because you won't have variety. Imagine going to war with only one type of tank or only one type of infantry. Not going to work.

 

""""Seriously, if you want ¡°scholarly articles¡±, do a google or amazon search, and you¡¯ll get plenty. I¡¯ll paste my ¡°facts¡± again. This time if you really have to, tell me the exact sentence in which you want a scholarly fact, that is if you can¡¯t find one yourself. If you think it¡¯s ¡°rhetoric¡±, than you shouldn¡¯t even mention it in the first place, else it¡¯s hypocritical, because you are contributing to it.>>""""

 

I prefer much more professional sources than these begginners introduction.

 

If you noticed, Needleham, Yang Hong, and Wagner are professional sources. They all got their degrees and sources. And Needleham is the one that started the "Chinese history studied both in depth and in the Western countries" wave. Not that it's a big wave, but it's going. There are institutes now named after him.

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: 12-Mar-2006 at 22:26

""""I never denied that the material used was inferior. What I denied was when you said:

¡°Han armour is superior precisely because it came out of the blast furnace.¡± -honeybee

Han armour is superior in material because of this, but that does not mean overall armour superiority.""""""

 

Selective reading again, you seem to have the habit of picking a single post without looking back at the whole topic, which is focus on material not overall design.

 

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.

 

 

""""LOW¡± carbonated steel is steel that came out of the blast furnace without the help of the Bessemer process. Perhaps the reason I mentioned that the Han dynasty never developed the Bessemer process until their very last days is because I like to pass information around instead of saying ¡°who's military is superior¡±."""""

 

I still want to know your point. I don't like to speculate about superiority and inferioirty either, but whats a tehcnological superiority is a given fact. And I state facts.

 

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

 

 I don't force equality on armies(if you want to be selective again, I mean weaponry quality in material here) when they are not equal.

 

I can't help being selective if you merely change the topic to a previous topic and then accuse me of going off topic.

 

 

 """"If there are only 100 infantry and 100 cavalry, then there wouldn¡¯t be more than a thousand killed(KIA from Ancient&Medieval Warfare). Since the Han Chinese captured 145 Romans(stated by the article Rome, China, and Roman Li Chien) to use as border guards, it would mean that less than 40 died in the battle. """""

 

The rest are siege units, for the third time.

 

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.

 

"""""Also explain to me how you will guard a city with 100 infantry. Not possible. Also note that the cavalry was said to be used to attack the Han camp(and was driven back), and was not mentioned to "guard" anything such as walls or palisades."""""

 

They didn't, the infantry here refers to the field infantry. The cavalry belongs to the Kang Ju, which number over 10,000 not the xiongnu.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

"""Roman superiority in melee is not what my argument was completely about, but only part of it."""""

 

 

And I am only arguing against this, its baseless.

 

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.  

 

 

"""""In open field confrontations(completely FLAT grassland), I actually think that Han melee infantry would have the advantage if they are not meeting head on. However, overall, when considering all the terrains, I would say that Roman melee infantry do indeed have the upper hand.""""""

 

 

Whats overall? Still covering yourself up? There are more open areas in the old world political centers than there are compacted terrains. Open fields range from the western Manchuria steppe all the way to Eastern Europe down to Persia, and into Egypt and northern Africa. So if we are speaking of overall, it would not be compacted terrains which Rome might have a superiority in.

 

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).

 

 

"""Yet it was the Ming generals of the middle ages that wore mail, something a common Roman infantry would wear. I never denied the superiority of the blast furnace, I merely denied that superiority of materials would make up for inferiority of coverage/type of armour in melee. Also a fact.""""

Sorry, but the original topic is about armour quality, not its design. Stop diverting the topic. The Ming also were lamellar and Brigandine, it is not completely mail at all, or even dominantly that. Mail has its good parts and bad parts, it is not superior in design, Goths also changed from mail to lamellar, so whats your point? Notice I NEVER said Han had superior armour in general, I only said their superiority in material. It was Conan who first said that Roman armours is alot better, and all I did was challenge that baseless notion

 

"""I am talking of Ming generals and those of higher rank, not the common Ming soldier. Mail is superior in design but is also incredibly hard to make, so it is economically draining. In fact you did say that Han had superior armor in general, but mostly you backed it up with their superiority in material. """"

 

The top Ming general did not wear mail, but a star shaped lamellar armour that function like a full chest plate. These armour takes much more man power and time to built. I never said Han had superior armour in general. We were talking about material, and I merely omitted the obvious in my sentence. I don't want to dwell on this rhetorical debate any further. Just move on with the facts.

Since I don't see that you have much disagreement with me, the whole pointless argument is only over rhetorical debates. I wouldn't bother reading the rest.

 

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.

 

""""This is called for another Fact: you have a bloated confidence. Snap out of the fantasy world. I have "facts" just as much, if not more, than you do. """"""

Nope, I am confident because my sources are far more reliable than yours, I use primary sources, professional Chinese published articles. I don't use webpages(unless they are from Chinese news) to back my claims.

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.

"""Needleham(prominence of missle weapons) shows this. A crapload of primary sources(crossbows as a prominent weapon) shows this. """""

No, they don't. Primary sources show that crossbow is not a prominent weapon(overall). And never the prominent against infantry(happy?).

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.



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: 12-Mar-2006 at 22:27

However, the problem is that warfare is not a matter of weapons. Warfare is a matter of money.

That depends on the gap between the weapons technology and the money. History has shown both ways.



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: 12-Mar-2006 at 22:34

 For example, how can you except the Romans to conquer the Han if they couldn't even permanently conquer a country as small as scotland. A similar observation can be made for China, replacing scotland with Korea.

Actually the Han had conquered Korea(about half of it). They just lost it once after the fall of the Western Han, gained it again by Eastern Han, and then lost it by the decline of Eastern Han. Sometimes conquering a country has less to do with military might and more to do with that country's importance as well as its distance. A country far away with little population/resources and no strategic geographical/political value would mean that larger, more powerful countries would spend less energy on conquering it, if any.

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: 13-Mar-2006 at 02:36
http://www.computersmiths.com/chines...ion/index.html

Timeline indicates technology developing in China, and the approximations for Western civilization refer to some form of the discovery observed later.

Decimal place system (14th century BC) - 2300 years later in Western civilization
Lacquer, the first plastic (13th century BC) - 3200 years later in Western civilization
1122
-256 BC Zhou Dynasty Western Zhou later cited as a model period. Capital city near Xian. Confucius born in 551 BC. Flowering in classical literature, arts, and philosophy; Confuciansim, Taoism. Lao Tze and Chuang Tze lived around this period.

Internal alchemy, meditation, and breathing techniques developed.
The first transportation canals were built.

6th century BC

Row cultivation of crops and intensive hoeing - 2200 years later in Western civilization
Iron plow - about 2000 years later in Western civilization
Blood circulation studied - 1800 years later in Western civilization
The large tuned bell developed - 2500 years later in Western civilization

5th century BC

Spouting bowls and standing waves experimentation.
Geobotanical prospecting - 2100 years later in Western civilization
The kite - about 2000 years later in Western civilization

4th century BC

The trace efficient horse harness - 500 years later in Western civilization
Double-acting piston bellows, air and liquid - 1900-2100 years later in Western civilization
Petroleum and natural gas as fuel - 2300 years later in Western civilization
A place for zero in math - 1400 years later in Western civilization
The first compass- 1500 years later in Western civilization
The First Law of Motion- 1300 years later in Western civilization (but 2000 to Newton)
Manned flight with kites - 1650 years later in Western civilization
War technology
Chemical warfare: poison gas, smoke bombs, tear gas - 2300 years later in Western civilization
The crossbow- Centuries later in Western civilization
770
-256 BC Eastern Zhou
722
-481 BC Spring and Autumn
403
-221 BC Warring States
221
-206 BC Qin Dynasty Unification of China under Emperor Qin Shi Huang. State walls are joined to form the Great Wall. Palace and mausoleum near Xian, standardization of weights, measures, calligraphy. Emperor Qin Shi Huang creates burial pit city including thousands of full-size clay soldier statues (Terracotta warriors).
206 BC
-220 AD Han Dynasty

Capitals at Changan and Luoyang rivals that of Rome. Buddhism enters China from India. Birth of Confucian civil service.
2nd century BC

Paper invented - 1400 years later in Western civilization
Agricultural innovations
The rotary winnowing fan - 2000 years later in the West
The multi-tube seed drill - 1800 years later in the West
Engineering -
Crank handle - 1100 years later in the West
Gimbals, or Cardan suspension - 1100 years later in the West
Manufacture of steel from cast iron - 2000 years later in the West
Science of endocrinology - 2100 years later in the West
Hexagonal structure of snowflakes - 1800 years later in the West
Parachute - 2000 years later in the West
Miniature hot-air balloons - 1400 years later in the West
Tuned drums - 2000 years later in the West
1st century BC

Deep drilling for natural gas - 1900 years later in the West
Belt drive - 1400-1800 years later in the West
Wheelbarrow - 1300 years later in the West
Sliding calipers - 1700 years later in the West
Hermetically sealed labs - bout 2000 years later in the West
1st century AD

Water power - 1200 years later in the West
Chain pump - 1400 years later in the West
Suspension bridge - 1800 years later in the West
The rudder - 1100 years later in the West
Seismograph (130 AD) - 1400 years later in the West
206 BC
-9 AD Western Han
25-220 AD Hou Han
Later or Eastern Han
220-280 San Kuo (Three Kingdoms)
Wei, Shu-Han, Wu Han generals divide empire. This period is romanticized as a time of chivalry and heroism in later literature.

2nd century AD

Recognition of sunspots as solar phenomena - 1300 years later in Western civilization
The "magic lantern" - 1800 years later in Western civilization
"Modern" geology - 1500 years later in Western civilization
Batten sails - staggered masts - not adopted in Western civilization
Multiple masts - fore and aft rigs - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Watertight compartments in ships - 1700 years later in Western civilization
265-317 Western Chin (Jin) China briefly united under one Emperor. Capitals at Luoyang, Changan.

3rd century AD

Cybernetic machine - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Fishing reel - 1400 years later in Western civilization
Stirrup - 300 years later in Western civilization
Porcelain - 1700 years later in Western civilization
Biological pest control - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Deficiency diseases - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Algebra used in geometry - 1000 years later in Western civilization
Refined value of pi - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Dial and pointer devices - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Understanding of musical timbre - 1600 years later in Western civilization
317-420 Eastern Chin (Jin)


4th century AD

Umbrella - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Helicopter rotor and propeller - 1500 years later in Western civilization
"Whoever messes with the heavenly middle kingdom, no matter how far s/he escapes, s/he is to be slaughtered"
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 03:43
Originally posted by Sino Defender Sino Defender wrote:

If the Han dynasty of China and the Roman Empire were next to each other, could the Han dynasty conquer the Roman Empire or vice versa?

I think the Han dynasty could have done so because of its larger production capability and more advanced technology such as the crossbow and superior seige weapons. and most importantly, they got the art of wars.


it's hard to say which one, but i choice Han (chinese) army.
Anfører
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: 13-Mar-2006 at 22:51

Sino Defender that’s cool and all, but what’s your point? I can name lots of thing that were invented in the Western world before the Eastern world. Like Archimedes death ray about 212 BC, the nail + hammer (Romans),Roman Coliseum ,the cannon (Greek/Roman steam cannon), TV, airplane, Democratic , Roman surgery (Roman medical science), internet, jets, ancient Greek steam engine, the Republic, Democratic-Republic (modern government), and much more! I can keep on going but it would be off topic. Every body invented some thing, that’s how us Humans rule Earth!

Archimedes death ray

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

“Japanese artillery cannon can't crack it(it blew a ramp up the wall, but it didn't blow any hole through it). Nor did counterweight trebuchets do the job during the Mongol capture of the Song capitol(although it did do much damage to the building's within the wall). Yes, there's a time difference between the Han dynasty and world war two, but the engineering was about the same, stamped earth. The heavier balls wouldn't go over 600 yards, although they COULD if they REALLY wanted to(for both sides, just build a bigger siege weapon), such as the Ottomans who created trebuchets which launched one to two extremely heavy balls a day. Most of the time these would be inefficient considering the cost and time to reload/build.”

No, the Mongol did take down some walls were they attacked, there is proof of this!!

During World War 2 Germans garrison some ancient Roman buildings, and most turned out to be bomb proof!! So how did ancient weapons destroy such stretchers? You got to see is that walls and buildings can be taken down with TIME, and there’s other ways to take them down as well! The Romans can also take the walls down by digging a tonal under them and F up the walls under them with no casualties, and again it takes time to take a wall done!

I know 200lbs or 250lbs balls wouldn't go over 600 yards, those would go over 200 yards, it’s the 50 and 75 lbs balls that can go very fare. I thought I said this all ready.

And do not for get about Archimedes death ray! This death ray can neutralize their enemies for miles away and can catch ships on fire!

“Only for the cream of their infantry. You must remember that not all Romans wore lorica segmentata, nor do all Romans have the best equipments available in the empire. Also, it's not "better shields", it's only another shield designed for another purpose. If enemy arrows can't punch through Roman shields, the much more cost efficient oval shields would be also much more efficient in combat, because its lighter weight would make the shield arm get sore much less easily.”

Dude they were standard, they fond the same equipment were the Roman went.

True not all Romans had the Lorica Segmentata, but it was very widely used! The Lorica Segmentata "Newstead" type was faster and easier to produce then any of them.

As for shields, they added lether on them also modify them as well. Yes they did designed for another purpose, but this purpose was just added, they can still use it as they were with the older ones. So it makes it a better shield if it works as well in both arias.

Bosniathebestcountry, I already talked about how the Romans can over come that.

“There are no best bows ever made, since it fully depends on the weather. However, if I have to chose it would be the modern compound bow (meaning it has pulleys and such), which didn't really exist back then.”

I agree. That’s the thing most people say it’s the British long bow, some will say Hun, bow or, or some say Roman bow (for its day at lest), some say other bows.

I would say both Han and Roman had good bows for their day.

“That is not a fair comparison since you compared Han light troops to Roman heavy legionares (and a standard bearer which means even heavier armor). In fact a typical Han charioter would outpace the Lorica segmentata in both armor and protection. It is fair to say that most Roman light infantry would still have more covering on average than the typical Han light infantry (no shoulder protection), but that is because Han infantry were built for speed. The thing I don't like about Osprey is that they seem to belittle Chinese warfare. They mentioned all the "defeats" they had, but they never mention their victories. It's as if the invaders(which were in actuality repulsed) randomly left as if the place wasn't to their liking. Their drawings, although generaly true during this period(unlike their drawings of Ming period soldiers), also left out the heavy infantry of the Han dynasty.”

 

Yea Roman light infantry would still have more covering on average than the typical Han light infantry….

I seen Han heavy infantry, its just hard as hell looking for a picture for one, agene I think I already explained about Roman superior armor quality.

But thanks for the pictures people.

Heavy armor of both sides

VS or

 

Roman Legionary Soldier with pilum (javelin).VSimg28/5272/dsc000545lm.jpg

 

 

 

Light armor of both sides

andVSimg491/5674/dscn14457ka.jpg

Is this a fair comparison?



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
conon394 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote conon394 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 23:14

Sino

I’m sorry to say your list is extremely inaccurate and in my opnion sophistic

Quote -256 BC Zhou Dynasty Western Zhou later cited as a model period. Capital city near Xian. Confucius born in 551 BC. Flowering in classical literature, arts, and philosophy; Confuciansim, Taoism. Lao Tze and Chuang Tze lived around this period.

I don’t see your point since of course I could simply point to Athens in the 4th or 5th century BC (and Ionia a century early) and suggest some kind of flowering or Arts, Literature and Philosophy in the West.  So West’s advantage by 50 to 250 years.

Quote Iron plow - about 2000 years later in Western civilization

Are you honestly stating that the west did not use the iron plow till 1400? The classical world had iron plows and where they were useful and needed (Northern Europe) heavy plows that were the fore fathers of the mortarboard plow. The supposed lack of heavy plows is a canard based on the long discredited work of Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes ( and his other famous fallacy of poor horse harnesses for the classical world) done more than a century ago.

Quote -206 BC Qin Dynasty Unification of China under Emperor Qin Shi Huang. State walls are joined to form the Great Wall. Palace and mausoleum near Xian, standardization of weights, measures, calligraphy. Emperor Qin Shi Huang creates burial pit city including thousands of full-size clay soldier statues (Terracotta warriors).

What your point the Chinese invented the ideal of a guy wasting a lot of his nation’s resources on his tomb just because he was the head honcho… I think the Egyptian’s got the Chinese beat hands down. On standardized weights and measures, off the top of my heat the Athenians win by some 200 years…

Quote Wheelbarrow - 1300 years later in the West

Actually the evidence suggests that the Athenians likely beat the Chinese by a couple of hundred years.

Quote Water power - 1200 years later in the West
Chain pump - 1400 years later in the West

I’m not quite sure in what century you are placing these. But since both were developed in the Hellenistic world in the 3rd century BC this is at best even.

Quote The rudder - 1100 years later in the West

No, I assume you mean the stern rudder here since the Classical world did have rudders they just preferred the stern quarter system.. But since the evidence from Egyptian tombs provides models of ships with stern rudders, I would give the nod to the west.

Quote Multiple masts - fore and aft rigs - 1200 years later in Western civilization

Now you are just being silly, The Romans and Greeks had 3 masted cargo vessels, lateen sails and sprit sails.

Quote Dial and pointer devices - 1200 years later in Western civilization

You fail to consider the  Antikythera mechanism which provided dial displays of information (edit sorry for the yelleing, that was font an error)

Quote Refined value of pi - 1200 years later in Western civilization

Except of course for the refinements by Archimedes and Ptolemy which preceded the Chinese work I think you mean to cite by 200 – 400 years…

Note from the web link dated to circa 900 AD

Quote Chain drive - 800 years later in the West

 This ignores the Rhodian auto loading bolt shooting catapult which used a form chain drive.

Many if not most of your points (or perhaspe better the assertions foem the web link you cite generally) represent an essentially fallacious application of a modern scientific or technical terms to any nominally related ancient or medieval Chinese inventions/devices/etc. without any supporting evidence.

To wit following you claims I could claim Hero of Alexandria invented the steam engine that would however be very inaccurate. Hero invented a few steam driven toys, but to say steam engine conjures images of Watt and full size working engines of the industrial revolution. Similarly the Chinese did not invent the seismograph. Zhang Hang’s device was like Hero’s toys largely useless. It did not measure the strength of an earthquake, nor provide any kind of actual locating ability (if 1000s of the devices had been built all over China, and thus providing for triangulation I might buy them called seismograph’s)

Quote Cybernetic machine - 1600 years later in Western civilization

What????

 

 

 



Edited by conon394
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 00:08

This is such a silly topic, and I've seen it on so many other forums.

The Han and Rome would never fight even if they were sitting next door. It would be too expensive, too risky, for too little benefit. They'd trade, and do lots of it.

Suspending disbelief for a moment, and assuming they did fight, you can't just compare what kind of arms and equipment they had and declare a winner on that. At Rome's outset, its metallurgy and equipment were far inferior to the Celts (ever wonder where they got the gladius from?). They were outnumbered - vastly. After suffering a period of defeats, and then an era of mixed victories for both sides, they began pushing back Celts to their north, in the battles against Cisalpine Gaul, in terrain which was totally unsuited to the kind of fighting they did, and much better suited to Celtic warfare. They didn't have the support of the locals, and just about everything you could imagine says they never should have had any success at all, except for one thing: tactics. The disciplined Roman armies initially met well-armed Celtic forces on their own ground with no other advantage, and defeated them time and time again. We typically view the Romans in their later phases, with their lorica segmentata and cavalry and carroballistae and gladiuses; they had none of these things in their early campaigns. So just throw all your arguments about both numbers and equipment and fighting styles out the window; it's not an accurate predictor. The earliest Roman victories were guys in wolf skins and stiffened leather with basic spears defeating Celtic warriors, sometimes in chainmail (another thing the Romans adopted from the Celts) or other metal armours, equipped with advanced iron weapons like the gladius.

The best predictor is the sophistication of the tacticians of each army and the strategies of the leaders, and that very much depends on how healthy the state and its military and leadership is. If you had, say, Caesarian Rome battle the Han under one of the weaker Emperors ruled by the eunuchs, the Han would have been defeated not just on the battlefield, but once war was on would also have been crippled by the failing of the legitimacy of authority that always happens when a vigorous nation confronts a corrupt and weak one. Rebellions would break out, vassals would openly side with the new invader. At different times, the reverse would apply, as Rome too certainly had its corrupt moments and weak leadership.

Back to Top
conon394 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote conon394 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 00:48

Edgewaters

Quote At Rome's outset, its metallurgy and equipment were far inferior to the Celts

A fact that is not in reality supported by either archeology or the literary evidence on the subject.  The widest study I have ever found (see 1. below) shows that Republican era iron swords were superior to Celtic ones. Evidence which dovetails rather well with the literary  (from Polybius for example) evidence for rather soft swords used by the Celts.

Quote in terrain which was totally unsuited to the kind of fighting they did, and much better suited to Celtic warfare

Why. The Celts basically favored massed heavy infantry fighting just like the early Romans. Where is the Celtic advantage?

 Note:

1. Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords
Janet Lang
Britannia > Vol. 19 (1988), pp. 199-216

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

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 02:01

Polybius? That's not exactly the earliest era of the Republic! Certainly by the third century Rome had surpassed most of its neighbours in many areas of technology, but by Polybius time the era of Celtic dominance and expansion had already passed, at least a century ago - they were in possession of much of Europe still but only as a legacy of their former dominance. You're talking about the 3rd century BCE and speaking of the Republic as if it was born bearing the gladius and drinking from an aqueduct! What's more important, is where exactly were the Romans obtaining their iron? Surface deposits of iron were not abundant enough in Italy to support a domestic metallurgical industry of the size needed by the Republic in the period you're talking about. Rome imported the metal for most of their smithing, and when it turns up in the archaelogical record, the best Roman irons are probably from what is described in the primary sources - that is, from the Norici.

"Rome"'s greatest centre of metallurgy was at Noricum, named after the Celtic tribe known to the Romans as the Norici. Noric iron is described in primary sources as having been prized by the Romans before they had drawn the Norici into the fold, and after their alliance with the Norici. Noric iron (sometimes referred to as Noric "steel" - noricus ensis - was certainly known to be highly prized in Rome, whether or not it was really steel as we know it) provided the backbone of quality Roman smithing, and it was all produced by a pre-existant, semi-independant Romanized Celtic group, as they had been doing for quite some time. It is no coincidence that some centuries prior to its alliance with Rome, Noricum was the great staging ground for the massed Celtic invasions of Italy - they could gear up there and be supplied with ease from there. Noricum was not the only such centre in the Celtic world, but because of its extensive relationship as a hospitum publicum of the Roman state, it is very well documented in the primary sources. The fact that Caesar was able to cement a particularly strong relationship with the Norici, who backed him exclusively, is credited as having been one factor in his success in the civil war. When and why the Norici first began trading with the Romans is unknown, but we do know that in the 4th century BCE the Celts were massing their expeditions against Rome from Noricum, but by 170 BCE the Norici had established a formal alliance with the Romans. My guess is that at some point, the Roman trade network had expanded and offered a different range of goods the Norici probably considered exotic luxuries. That, and possibly by this time they needed allies against the expanding power of Germanic groups (by 113 BC the Norici and other Celtic groups in the vicinity were calling on Rome for assistance against a Cimbri and Teutones horde, which crushed the Roman relief force under Carbo somewhere near Noricum. This was the same group the Romans eventually put down at the Battle of Vercellae). Noricum was eventually incorporated as province, and so prized they held on it until their very end; Roman administration still existed in Noricum right up until Odoacer was crowned and had Roman administration withdrawn following a war with the Rugi tribe.

The other great source of quality Roman metals was Gallic Spain, and again, it had been a metalworking centre of great repute long before the Romans arrived. The early Republic could not compete with either of these centres, and their products after incorporation were the source of "Roman" metallurgical superiority.

Celtic technology enjoyed a period of superiority over Rome, and yes, its borne out by archaelogical evidence and primary sources. It is indisputable that the gladius was adopted by the Romans, along with chain mail, and it's not conceivable that the Romans could have had superior metallurgy in its earliest times and yet been unable to smith artifacts of the same technical competence. It doesn't make any sense, especially considering their better access to diffused ideas and skills from the Meditteranean cultures. It's particularly bizarre that the Romans themselves describe prizing the quality of metals from Celtic centres like Noricum, if their own were already superior. Why would inferior iron be referred to as "steel" and considered a treasure? Nor does it make any sense that in the late pre-Roman era, a technologically inferior culture with no central state could spread its culture and technology across the whole of Europe while advanced cultures huddled in the shadows of Europe's fringes barely able to hold their own against this bizarre and senseless historical phenomena. Celtic culture spread because the package of crafts and technology which comprised it was effective and useful and dominant. The Greco-Roman/Etruscan cultures of the late pre-Roman era were forced to hold their northern borders and expand east or south because they were not only unable to make military penetration, but their crafts and culture did not spread into central Europe during this period because they were not as useful. There was an ample network of diffusion and trade for them to spread had they been more useful.

 

As far as fighting styles, to describe both Celtic and Roman tactics as "massed heavy infantry" and then conclude they were essentially the same is absurd. Early Romans - before the 4th century BCE, and even the Etruscans before them - were fighting in phalanxes, like Greeks.  Have you ever seen a Celtic phalanx?  Later devlopments evolved out of the phalanx - and the change was very much precipated by the Celtic sack of Rome. Nevertheless, they retained the essential element of fighting in coordinated ranks as a whole unit. Celtic warfare was about individual bravery, a howling mob of frenzied warriors that overcame its opponents with ferocity and momentum, while the Romans style was one of disciplined soldiers acting as parts of a greater whole, executing a plan devised by their leaders like a human machine. How you can conclude any sort of similarity between the two is stunning.



Edited by edgewaters
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: 14-Mar-2006 at 10:22

 The Romans and Greeks had 3 masted cargo vessels, lateen sails and sprit sails.

Interesting, do you have any sources on this? I have seen some late Roman(after 200AD) pictures done on walls in which it implies the use of multiple masts, but I can't find any information that says that Imperial Rome and the Greeks had it.

I assume you mean the stern rudder here since the Classical world did have rudders they just preferred the stern quarter system.. But since the evidence from Egyptian tombs provides models of ships with stern rudders

Can I see the sources on this too? And I don't think Egypt was part of the "west". I do believe that a lot of credit that should belong to Egypt(particularly in the math section) was instead given to the classical powers such as Greece and China. Both China and Greece discovered many mathmatical equations and such at about the same time, but nowadays the West gives all the credit to Athens, never even mentioning China, while China gives all the credit to, well, China, and fails to mention Athens. But no matter, they both came up with equations already used by Egypt long before.

 

The timeline given by Sinodefender is indeed inaccurate at certain points, and the numerous " discovered so and so years after the West" are bound to cause bad feelings. Here is a more accurate description(more descriptive, less vague) of Chinese inventions, without comparing it to the west.

http://www.villarevak.org/cathay/invention.html

 



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: 14-Mar-2006 at 10:26
Praetorian, I can't tell which one is quoted and which one is not, except the pictures you've taken, which I would say is more of a fair comparison than the previous pictures you've posted.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 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 0.079 seconds.