Roman Republic vs Eastern Han

[Ironduke]

if you see the pix, there are still gaps between the shields, where the head is (front and rear rank), and the feet. this would be all the more true as arrows start thunking down.

I don't think the gaps in the shields of the soldiers in the front/sides/rear with shield facing forward are a serious vulnerability, given that the trajectory of nearly all incoming missiles would be to a lesser or greater extent at a downward angle.

I'm a fairly good archer, I could probably get one arrow in three through that gap at 15 yards, but much beyond that it would be a shot in the dark. The arrow would have to hit the legionnaire directly in the eyes or between them, as they'd be wearing helmets as well.

Admitted, Roman infantry legion was at a severe disadvantage compared with the Parthian calvary of the time, never tried to imply otherwise. Just corroborating Triple C's point. :)

[IDonT]

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.

[Spongegod]

I think Rome can take China. The Romans were conquerors by definition and created their whole civilization through conquest. China has never had to conquer anything and is not used to conquest. And from what little I know of history (compared to certain persons on this board), China lost more fights than Rome did. For some reason it just strikes me as being that whenever China fights someone that isn't China, China always loses.

[astralis]

spongegod,

China has never had to conquer anything and is not used to conquest.

ROFLMAO.

[zraver]

I think Rome can take China. The Romans were conquerors by definition and created their whole civilization through conquest. China has never had to conquer anything and is not used to conquest. And from what little I know of history (compared to certain persons on this board), China lost more fights than Rome did. For some reason it just strikes me as being that whenever China fights someone that isn't China, China always loses.

China has spent much of its history conquering China. With physical borders nearly as big or bigger than the Roman empire and more human genius they got everything they needed. The only problem vs Rome is that China only really faced two types of enemies. Steppe horse tribes and other Asian style infantry armies. Rome got exposure to a much wider arena of military styles.

[zraver]

if you see the pix, there are still gaps between the shields, where the head is (front and rear rank), and the feet. this would be all the more true as arrows start thunking down.

basically, against foot archers this wouldn't be so bad- testudo offers enough protection for the legionaries to close in, first with pilum and then with sword. but against horse archers, this is more problematic, as the romans on foot are going have a devil of a time catching up to horse archers doing cantabrian circles/parthian shots.

Not as much as you might think if they had a good commander. Men can walk most horse armies to death. I can only think of two horse armies that could not be run down by men on foot and thats the Mongols and Native Americans and they had large remudas. A professional and heavy cavalry force with smaller remudas facing an infantry army with a good commander is in trouble. later Roman victories vs the Parthians bare this out.

[Spongegod]

China has spent much of its history conquering China. With physical borders nearly as big or bigger than the Roman empire and more human genius they got everything they needed. The only problem vs Rome is that China only really faced two types of enemies. Steppe horse tribes and other Asian style infantry armies. Rome got exposure to a much wider arena of military styles.

That's exactly right. Rome fought and took down all sorts of enemy cultures. China never had experience fighting anything but itself.

[zraver]

That's exactly right. Rome fought and took down all sorts of enemy cultures. China never had experience fighting anything but itself.

And Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, most of the SE Asia in fact. Plus they warred against Persia on occasion and of course the steppes.

[Ironduke]

later Roman victories vs the Parthians bare this out.

Romans in the first century AD onward incorporated cavalry and Parthian tactics.

[IDonT]

Romans in the first century AD onward incorporated cavalry and Parthian tactics.

The last battle between the Parthians and the Romans - the battle of Nasisbis was a draw. The Parthians had their armored camels while the Roman's employed the caltrops.

Parthian weakness, not Roman strength led the the capture of Csitephon several times. However, the Romans could never push through the Parthian heartland in the Iranian Plateau. Same for the Parthians, the furthest west they could go was Judea and Syria.

[IDonT]

I think Rome can take China. The Romans were conquerors by definition and created their whole civilization through conquest. China has never had to conquer anything and is not used to conquest. And from what little I know of history (compared to certain persons on this board), China lost more fights than Rome did. For some reason it just strikes me as being that whenever China fights someone that isn't China, China always loses.

China was created through the conquest of six other warring states through a period of 300 years.

China was expanded through the conquest of "barbarians", either infantry based (Vietnam, Korea, and Southern China) or cavalry based (Xiongnu).

Most of the armies the Roman Legions fought were either barbarian tribes or professional (Phalanx and other legions). When faced with someone that knows how to employ cavalry, they tend to have a hard time. The only way the Romans improve their army to meet a particular threat was to increase the size of the auxilia (allied cavalry, archers, slingers, etc). The core of the heavy legionaire remained.

China on the other hand had vastly different armies that are recruited to fight vastly different foes. There armies are not built around a single core professional soldiers but are built to meet a particular army. During the Han-Chu contention after the fall of the Qin dynasty, the armies were composed mostly of infantry armed with crossbow, sword/shield, and halbeards. When fighting against the Xiongnu, Han Wudi created an army consisting entirely of cavalry.

[IDonT]

videos that help illustrate ancient chinese weapons of the era

YouTube - History - Ancient Chinese Weapons 1-5

YouTube - History - Ancient Chinese Weapons 2-5

[Inst]

horrible program. Confuses Qin Dynasty with Zhou Dynasty and Chu with Qin.

[Triple C]

Parthian Composite bows did inflict wounds that render a roman legionaire combat ineffective, which has a greater resource draw than having a death casualty. (Similar concept as modern anti-personel mines that are designed to wound.)

I am well aware of that. However combat incapacitation from non-lethal wounds is far less than a reliable means to stop the enemy, providing only a softening effect on him. As you have noted yourself, the Romans would not have routed had the Parthians failed to secure an extraordinary quantity of missiles. If out of ammo, the missile armed army would be at a tremendous disadvantage, especially if your enemy could negate your mobility by either A. possess equal mobility or B. fighting on the defensive.

3.) Not all of the Han Army consists entirely of crossbowman. Archeological records shows a combined arms force. The army sent by Han Wudi to defeat the Xiongnu were entirely cavalry. Unfortunately, we do not have records of the Han army that has the same amount of detail that we have on the Roman Legions. We can however infer to how a crossbow, halberd, sheild and sword, and cavalry armed army operates by how a similarly armed European army fought during the high middle ages.

Yes I am aware of that. However the Romans had fought armies with combined arms capability before. Having a weak infantry core between your cavalry may very well be a fatal vulnerability when exploited properly.

Parthian weakness, not Roman strength led the the capture of Csitephon several times. However, the Romans could never push through the Parthian heartland in the Iranian Plateau. Same for the Parthians, the furthest west they could go was Judea and Syria.

That is sort of subjective. I hope you don't take this as a cheap shot but the same could be said about Roman defeats vis-a-vis the Parthians. This type of argument is easy to make but hard to prove.The historiography painted an utterly unflattering picture of Crassius as a military commander. The Romans did have screening cavalry at the time and as many historians had pointed out, Crassius's heterodox deployment of the legions at Carhae denied his own army of freedom to maneouver. The Romans made as many offensives as the Parthian during the Roman-Parthian Wars which suggests to me that the Rommans were at least on an equal tactical footing with their adversaries. The Romans reguarly built field fortifications at 24 hour intervals on forced march, the discipline of which was far beyond the grasp of any medieval European armies. I have not researched Chinese armies during the Han period enough to know how well the Chinese compared to the Romans in this respect, but I doubt they could.

Furthermore the advantage of an combined arms army can be illusory. The clash of shock troops dedicated to face-to-face combat against light infantry that was used to ellusive tactics at a distance often proved an extremely unhealthy experience to the latter. In the Greco-Persian Wars the Persians, who had light cavalry in large numbers lost to the Greeks who had no real cavlry to speak of, almost every time they failed to achieve gross numerical superiority. Darius deployed a far more diverse army in troop types than Alexander the Great, whose army was basically composed of shock troops and mounted shock troops. The results of known battles do not prove to me conclusively the superiority of one type of army to another as far as technology and tactics are concerned.

[IDonT]

I am well aware of that. However combat incapacitation from non-lethal wounds is far less than a reliable means to stop the enemy, providing only a softening effect on him. As you have noted yourself, the Romans would not have routed had the Parthians failed to secure an extraordinary quantity of missiles. If out of ammo, the missile armed army would be at a tremendous disadvantage, especially if your enemy could negate your mobility by either A. possess equal mobility or B. fighting on the defensive.

When a crossbow bolt pierces a scotum and breaks the left arm of a legionaire, that legion has lost some of its combat power. Multiply that by thousands and you have a problem. I don't need to kill you to make less effective.

Yes I am aware of that. However the Romans had fought armies with combined arms capability before. Having a weak infantry core between your cavalry may very well be a fatal vulnerability when exploited properly.

The only enemy that Rome ever faced that knew how to use a combined arms army was Hannibal. He only lost at Zama because Scipio manage to convince the Numidian Cavalry to change sides.

The Seulecids and Macedonians have forgotten that it was the cavalry arm, not the phalanx, that made Alexander so lethal.

The Gauls, Macedonians, Greeks, and Germans were mainly infantry types.

That is sort of subjective. I hope you don't take this as a cheap shot but the same could be said about Roman defeats vis-a-vis the Parthians. This type of argument is easy to make but hard to prove.The historiography painted an utterly unflattering picture of Crassius as a military commander. The Romans did have screening cavalry at the time and as many historians had pointed out, Crassius's heterodox deployment of the legions at Carhae denied his own army of freedom to maneouver. The Romans made as many offensives as the Parthian during the Roman-Parthian Wars which suggests to me that the Rommans were at least on an equal tactical footing with their adversaries. The Romans reguarly built field fortifications at 24 hour intervals on forced march, the discipline of which was far beyond the grasp of any medieval European armies. I have not researched Chinese armies during the Han period enough to know how well the Chinese compared to the Romans in this respect, but I doubt they could.

Mark Anthony invaded Parthia with 100K troops and lost 1/3 that number without ever fighting the Parthians in a pitch battle. The main problem I have with the Roman army is they use a 1 size fits all approach to war, the heavy infantry. Don't get me wrong, the legion was very good. However, it took the Romans 400 years to figure out that what works against barbarian infantry does not work against cavalry base army of the Parthians and Sassanids.

Furthermore the advantage of an combined arms army can be illusory. The clash of shock troops dedicated to face-to-face combat against light infantry that was used to ellusive tactics at a distance often proved an extremely unhealthy experience to the latter. In the Greco-Persian Wars the Persians, who had light cavalry in large numbers lost to the Greeks who had no real cavlry to speak of, almost every time they failed to achieve gross numerical superiority. Darius deployed a far more diverse army in troop types than Alexander the Great, whose army was basically composed of shock troops and mounted shock troops. The results of known battles do not prove to me conclusively the superiority of one type of army to another as far as technology and tactics are concerned.

Terrain is what did in the Persians against the Greeks. Alexander was a special case. He was a genius and he commanded the Persian army, he would still have won.