Quote:
Originally Posted by Inst
Han Vs Rome comes down to one thing, really. How effective is the crossbow versus the Roman legions? If a Qin dynasty or a Han dynasty crossbow can pierce the scutum and kill the legionnaire, then the Han dynasty will rout. If it can't pierce the scutum and the legionnaire's body armor, then the Chinese forces will be in a lot of trouble.
|
The Han used heavy crossbow bolts about 1-2 lbs each (notice the entire bolt, not just the tip is made of metal). The shape of the bolt is clearly designed to pierce armor. The English would later independently re-invent and call them the Bodkin point. They will go through plywood and armor. The Parthian composite bows did.
Secondly, the Han army is a combined arms force of heavy and light cavalry, crossbow, sword and shield, and halbeard armed infantry. Historically, crossbows and other missile weapons were meant to disrupt and prevent formations. Even in the flint lock era, the bayonet charge was the main determinant of battle.
In the Qin and Eastern Han eras, their combined arms army have their crossbow men pelt their enemies, as the Halberd and sword and shield armed heavy infantry advances and heavy cavalry flank. Crossbows, with their long range and power, prevents their enemy from effectively countering any manuever by keeping them busy protecting themselves from crossbow bolts.
The Roman army had the same weapon with the same effect, the pilum.
Pillum is thrown before charge, rear ranks throw pilum as front ranks are charging. While the pilum may injure or kill some of the enemy, they have a much effective affect of preventing the enemy front ranks from successfully countering the charge by disrupting their thought pattern from "brace for the charge" to "keep your shield up and deflect the Pilum.
The Han heavy infantry, on the contrary, will seek to close with the Roman soldiers.