World Affairs Board - View Single Post

IDonT · 04-23-2008, 15:47 PM

Repost from CHF, Yun's post on the Han army.

****************************
A memorial to the Western Han emperor Wendi in 169 BC, by the great statesman Chao Cuo 晁错. A classic account of Western Han military strategy, including their version of crossbow drill:

... According to the Bingfa 兵法 (unclear which work it is, apparently not Sunzi), where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd (长戟) is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman. ...

... Now both the country and the tactics of the Xiongnu are different from those of the Chinese. Their lands are nothing but mountain-slopes with ways going up and down and winding through gorges in and out; in such regions our Chinese horses cannot compete with theirs. Along the tracks at the edges of precipices still they ride and shoot; our Chinese horse archers can hardly do the like. Rain and storm, exhaustion and fatigue, hunger and thirst, nothing do they fear; our Chinese soldiers can in these things hardly compare with them. These are the merits of the Xiongnu.

On the other hand, on plains light chariots can be used and cavalry charges made; in such conditions the Xiongnu are readily thrown into confusion. The strong crossbow (劲弩) and the ballista shooting javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Xiongnu can in no way equal. The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armoured soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something that even the Xiongnu cannot face. The troops with crossbows ride forward and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Xiongnu cannot resist. Then the [Chinese horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and halberd; this is something that the Xiongnu do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese.

Thus from all these considerations we see that the Xiongnu have three merits and our Chinese [soldiers] have five. Yet Your Majesty has sent out troops numbering several hundred thousands to fight a horde of Xiongnu numbering only several thousands, so that we have a superiority of ten to one.

Needham's comment: [Noteworthy is] the firm statement that the crossbow was a weapon more effective than the short composite bows of the nomadic horse archers, which it outranged. Its larger catapult (i.e. ballista) forms were also evidently considered important. Of interest, too, is the information we are given about the proper tactical use of crossbowmen, and their three-rank drill, already developed in the Han.

The use of dismounted horse archers, wielding swords and halberds, by the Han was probably a kind of mopping-up operation to finish off the Xiongnu who had been dismounted or incapacitated by crossbow bolts. This indicates that horse archers in the Han army were a multi-purpose skirmishing force, unlike the specialised crossbowmen and infantry. Massed charges by cavalry were apparently still not important on either side - Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain.

04-23-2008, 15:47 PM	#32 (permalink)
IDonT Patron Join Date: 06-13-06 Posts: 166	Repost from CHF, Yun's post on the Han army. **************************** A memorial to the Western Han emperor Wendi in 169 BC, by the great statesman Chao Cuo 晁错. A classic account of Western Han military strategy, including their version of crossbow drill: ... According to the Bingfa 兵法 (unclear which work it is, apparently not Sunzi), where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd (长戟) is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman. ... ... Now both the country and the tactics of the Xiongnu are different from those of the Chinese. Their lands are nothing but mountain-slopes with ways going up and down and winding through gorges in and out; in such regions our Chinese horses cannot compete with theirs. Along the tracks at the edges of precipices still they ride and shoot; our Chinese horse archers can hardly do the like. Rain and storm, exhaustion and fatigue, hunger and thirst, nothing do they fear; our Chinese soldiers can in these things hardly compare with them. These are the merits of the Xiongnu. On the other hand, on plains light chariots can be used and cavalry charges made; in such conditions the Xiongnu are readily thrown into confusion. The strong crossbow (劲弩) and the ballista shooting javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Xiongnu can in no way equal. The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armoured soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something that even the Xiongnu cannot face. The troops with crossbows ride forward and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Xiongnu cannot resist. Then the [Chinese horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and halberd; this is something that the Xiongnu do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese. Thus from all these considerations we see that the Xiongnu have three merits and our Chinese [soldiers] have five. Yet Your Majesty has sent out troops numbering several hundred thousands to fight a horde of Xiongnu numbering only several thousands, so that we have a superiority of ten to one. Needham's comment: [Noteworthy is] the firm statement that the crossbow was a weapon more effective than the short composite bows of the nomadic horse archers, which it outranged. Its larger catapult (i.e. ballista) forms were also evidently considered important. Of interest, too, is the information we are given about the proper tactical use of crossbowmen, and their three-rank drill, already developed in the Han. The use of dismounted horse archers, wielding swords and halberds, by the Han was probably a kind of mopping-up operation to finish off the Xiongnu who had been dismounted or incapacitated by crossbow bolts. This indicates that horse archers in the Han army were a multi-purpose skirmishing force, unlike the specialised crossbowmen and infantry. Massed charges by cavalry were apparently still not important on either side - Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain.