Roman Republic vs Eastern Han

[Triple C]

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.

Putting a a painful hole on the legionaire's arm, yes. It wouldn't break it, though, and I won't count on it to take my enemy out of the field. The thousands of arrorows the Parthians had to use to have the paralysing effect is telling.

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.

Are you sure about that? The Parthians had infantry. Not good ones compared to the Romans, but nobody's were. The Rommans did successfully intergrate the Numidians into their formations, and a good deal of Sipio's convincing was done at the tip of the sword. I think a lot of those Chinese mounter archers were stepp mercenaries.

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

I am not so sure about the Gauls. Ceasar's honor guards was heavy Gallic cavalry, and so were that of Vespesian and Titus. It is also clear that Gallic auxilliary cavalry was deployed as shock cavalry on the field. While the Romans depended on their heavy infantry to win their battles they were far from deprived in their selection of cavalry troops.

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.

That was, if I am not mistaken, after Ventidius wiped out two Parthian field armies with classic defensive infantry tactics against cavalry. Anthony lost most of his men to exposure and disease than battle after having his own line of logistics cut. Again, I don't see either empire as having a clear tactical advantage against the other.

Terrain is what did in the Persians against the Greeks.

Terrain forced the Persians to give up a measure of their superiority in numbers. Yet they still lost every head-on battle against the Greeks; their missile fire and cavalry charges failed to bring the Greeks to heel. All this says is that a light cavalry and infantry army can take a pure heavy infantry force in terrain favorable to cavalry movement and has long fields of fire. Which is IMHO not a lot.

Alexander was a special case. He was a genius and he commanded the Persian army, he would still have won.

Alexander was a military genius in that he defeated an empire a league above the Greeks in wealth and power in record time with inferior numbers and limited resources. It was never in doubt that the Greeks could lick the Persians in any tactical battle when they could muster a force large enough to ensure that the Persians could not defeat them by movement alone. Xenophon cut his way out of Persia with 10,000 Spartans and Athenians--a number totally inadequate to hold any permanent ground and no supplies out of what they could obtain by waste and pillage--against what the empire could throw at them. The fact that they made it out suggest that the Persian military system was seriously flawed. Btw Alexander's infantry had only lost one straight up fight againts the Persians and that was his left wing in Guagamela. Without his elite cavalry Alexander would have been forced to take more casualities thus limiting the scope and range of his conquests but he probably would not have lost.

[IDonT]

Putting a a painful hole on the legionaire's arm, yes. It wouldn't break it, though, and I won't count on it to take my enemy out of the field. The thousands of arrorows the Parthians had to use to have the paralysing effect is telling.

If you have a crossbow bolt sticking out of your forearm, you cannot weild your sword or sheild effectively. If it hits your leg, calves, or feet, walking let alone fighting is difficult. If one of your men is hit like that, he is out of the fight. My point is that a crossbow bolt does not need to kill to take a legionaire out of the fight.

Think how the crossbow changed warfare in Europe in the middle-ages. How devastating it was to armored knights that even the Pope banned their use. Similar changes in warfare occured in China when the crossbow was introduced in the Warring States period.

As for the others, I think we got off topic. I would gladly discuss them with you if you open a Rome/Greek vs Persia topic. :)

[IDonT]

This is from a post on the ChinaHistory Forum. It describes the battle between a Xiongnu Warlord and the Han Army circa 36 BC. This is the the battle where the rumored Roman prisoners from Carrhae fought the Chinese. I bolded the relevant passages.


First of all, the relevant text is the "Han Shu" (History of the Han Dynasty) and not the "Hou Han Shu" (History of the Later Han Dynasty) as the article mistakenly claims. The passage is in the biography of Chen Tang, one of the two Han generals who led the battle against the Xiongnu Chanyu (king) Zhizhi. [Zhizhi Chanyu was his title, like "Chinggis Khan" - his real name (transliterated into Chinese) was Luanti Hutuwusi]

This is the passage describing the battle (Chinese characters in GB encoding):

The next day, the Han army advanced to Zhizhi's fort on the bank of the Talas River, and set up camp three li (about 1.5 kilometres) from the fort.


They saw five-coloured banners flying from the Chanyu's fort, and several hundred men in armour defending its ramparts. More than a hundred cavalry rode back and forth in front of the fort, and more than a hundred infantry performed drills at its gates in fish-scale formation.

The Xiongnu defending the fort taunted the Han army, shouting, "Come and fight!"

The Xiongnu cavalry charged the Han camp, but all the Han crossbowmen had their weapons loaded and aimed, so the cavalry backed off.

The Han crossbowmen then moved in several times and shot volleys at the Xiongu cavalry and infantry at the gate of the fort, forcing them to withdraw into the fort.

Han Generals Gan Yanshou and Chen Tang ordered the army to charge to the walls of the fort at the sounding of the drums and surround it on all four sides. Each unit would perform the task assigned to it: some digging tunnels under the walls, some blocking up the arrow ports in the walls. The pavises advanced in front, and the halberdiers and crossbowmen behind them. The crossbowmen laid down a supressing fire on the ramparts, driving the defenders off the walls.

But there were also two wooden stockades outside the fort, from which the Xiongnu shot arrows at the Han attackers, killing or wounding many of them.

The attackers then brought up torches and burned the stockades down.

That night, several hundred Xiongnu cavalry attempted to break out of the siege (and seek reinforcements), but were wiped out by the Han crossbows.

At first, the Chanyu had thought of fleeing to Kangju (a tributary state of the Xiongnu) upon hearing of the arrival of the Han army. But he then suspected that the king of Kangju would betray him to the Han as revenge for past grievances. He also heard that Wusun and all the other Central Asian states (that had once been dominated by the Xiongnu) had contributed troops to the Han expeditionary force, and realised that he had nowhere to run.

(Before the battle) Zhizhi Chanyu had already evacuated the fort, but then returned to it, saying, "Why not hold out? The Han army has travelled far, and its supplies cannot sustain a long siege."

The Chanyu then put on his armour and took his place on the walls, and even his queen and several tens of concubines took bows and shot at the besiegers.

One of the Han crossbowmen shot the Chanyu in the nose, and many of his concubines were also shot dead.

The Chanyu then came down from the walls and mounted his horse, directing the defense from his headquarters within the fort.

By midnight, the stockades had been destroyed, but the Xiongnu defenders came up onto the rammed-earth walls of the fort and yelled battle cries.

At this point, more than ten thousand Kangju cavalry arrived (the Kangju king had remained loyal to the Xiongnu after all) and deployed in more than ten places around the fort in support of the Xiongnu.

In the night, they attacked the Han camp several times, but were beaten back each time.

At dawn, fires were raised all around the fort, and the Han soldiers scaled the walls in high spirits and shouting their battle cries. The sound of bells and drums shook the earth.

The Kangju reinforcements disengaged and fled the scene.

The Han soldiers advanced behind pavises on all sides of the fort, and stormed it en masse.

The Chanyu, with more than a hundred men and women in his entourage, retreated into his headquarters.


The Han army set fire to the headquarters and then charged in. The Chanyu suffered severe wounds and died.

An officer named Du Xun cut off the Chanyu's head. Inside the headquarters, the Han soldiers found two captive Han envoys, as well as the letter that Gu Ji (a Han envoy whom Zhizhi Chanyu had executed, provoking the Han expedition against him) and his mission had presented to the Chanyu.

All the Han soldiers were allowed to keep whatever booty they found.

The Xiongnu queen, crown prince and aristocrats were all beheaded, about 1,518 people in all. 145 Xiongnu were captured in battle, and more than a thousand surrendered. These prisoners were bestowed upon the kings of the fifteen Central Asian kingdoms who had participated in the expedition.

[Triple C]

If you have a crossbow bolt sticking out of your forearm, you cannot weild your sword or sheild effectively. If it hits your leg, calves, or feet, walking let alone fighting is difficult. If one of your men is hit like that, he is out of the fight. My point is that a crossbow bolt does not need to kill to take a legionaire out of the fight.

All that is good and well. I am merely pointing out the obvious that strong, determined individuals will fight with life threatening wounds. That heavy armor and shield mitigates the effect of missile fire, and that if not enough of the legionaires were dropped before contact, the light infantry force will have a serious fight at their hands.

They saw five-coloured banners flying from the Chanyu's fort, and several hundred men in armour defending its ramparts. More than a hundred cavalry rode back and forth in front of the fort, and more than a hundred infantry performed drills at its gates in fish-scale formation.

So it is suspected that there were Romans in a battle with the Chinese. That is an interesting hypothesis but what relevance is it going to bear on the issue? That about a centuria of Romans were defeated at a fortified camp by how many Chinese troops?

But there were also two wooden stockades outside the fort, from which the Xiongnu shot arrows at the Han attackers, killing or wounding many of them.

I do not see what are you getting at, and my guess is that you mean to illustrate how Xiongu darts can penetrate certain types of Chinese armor. That does not say how well Chinese darts perform would against Roman armor or how strong is Roman defenses in general. I can also tell you that the British Royal Armoury performed a series of experiments with reproduction medieval plate armor and contemporary projectile missiles, supervised by both experts in the field and scientists from Vickers. None of the projectiles, save for heavy crossbow at very close range, succeeded in punching through. That, however, does not answer the question: what is the power of Chinese crossbows against Roman armor + shield, especially the new thickened designs the Rommans allegedly adopted after Carhae?

Too many factors unaccounted for in this hypothetical senario for me to be convinced.

[IDonT]

Triple C,

There are many people who hypothesized as to what happened to the Roman prisoners at Carrhae. One thought was that they were employed as mercenaries to a Xiongnu warlord called ZhiZhi. This warlord, along with the ex Roman soldiers, were later defeated in a siege by Han Chinese troops around 36 BC.

The two main arguments are the ones I highlighted.

1.) The troops employed the "fish scale formation" a formation that could be the testudo.

2.) The double wooden stockade, a common Roman field fortification.

As usual there is no way to prove it.

[Davicus_Grimm]

Ok my view on this intire matter is based on the begining about China verse Rome in 100 B.C. to 50 B.C. correct?

Well if you read up in who was leading China for a good portion of those 50 years and who lead before that momen Emperor Wu of Han you would see that during his Reign and the vast amounts of land he grabed during his reign China was titled one of the most powerful nations in the world in military and Influence. Offcourse if you view the fact that China was one of the most technilogically advanced nations ever to grace history you would view that there were reports of such inventions as the catapults and seige Crossbows far back in there history aswell as there crossbows they could easily put a hole into a Roman Legion. Offcourse the Romans had the advantage of a more formated force, but im assuming this for the Roman empire there force at its greatest extent was what? 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 Soldiers China could send that much off with a sneeze into a tissue... The Chinese were a nation of super cities and large populations lets not forget that many things we find modern were actually started in China. The tribuchet and the catapult lets not forget some of the first metropeleon cities began in China so with such a large population and such large amounts of recources in there pockets not only could they send much larger forces then the romans, but they could send out far betterly equipted and powerful soldiers.
There calvary offcourse was another one of there main weopens against an enemy, but they also had the repeating crossbow which despite significantly weaker then the average crossbow in strength the raw speed and force it could still hit with was incredible. A skilled user could fire 20 or 30 Shots a minute something that wasnt seen again till world war 1 or 2 :/.....

So if we did a look into this little battle lets view this from what we know if both of there forces clashed


Roman Empire
200,000 Roman legions
100,000 Barbarian Tribal Solders (Mercs)
100 Seige Weopens (Think anykind you want)

VS

Han China (Under Emperor Wu of Han)
400,000 Han Chinese Infantry (Weilding basicly a assortment of Spears,sheilds, and Daos)
100,000 Han Calvary
50,000 Repeating Crossbowmen
100,000 Assortment of different forms of Archers (From bow to normal crossbows)
100 Seige Weopens


Obviously the largeness in force is proof enough of superiorority in this case, but even if the Romans wanted to get into a close range battle they would literally have to go through enough arrows to block out the sun....

Since if we do this right lets view this a RC can fire if a average archer uses it 10-15 Arrows a minute now lets time that by 50,000

10 X 50,000 = 500,000

Now lets assume that roughly due to weakness in each strike teh force would not die to quickly from this or some wouldnt even be hit or defence from sheilds for a time so will divide death count to 200,000ish.

The death count would be incredible just from this alone. This would be more historicly accurate due to the fact that Chinese believed in using missile based fighting such as firing from a distance for as much as possible.

Still I would believe that the Han Forces would prove victorious if a large scale war ever was to occur between the two.



Also in history there were some accounts of of small time fighting between han forces and roman Legions on a area around the silk road... Still just wanted to point that out :P

[Triple C]

I left this thread because it was proven unproductive. Now that someone brought it back to life...

The tribuchet and the catapult lets not forget some of the first metropeleon cities began in China so with such a large population and such large amounts of recources in there pockets not only could they send much larger forces then the romans, but they could send out far betterly equipted and powerful soldiers.

As my professor was fond of saying, cite a solid source please.

The alleged engagement between Romans and Chinese proves NOTHING. If that theory is true, which in this present state is a mere hypothesis, take a damned look at the numbers involved. The allegedly present Romans in that battle was numerically insignificant.

Offcourse if you view the fact that China was one of the most technilogically advanced nations ever to grace history you would view that there were reports of such inventions as the catapults and seige Crossbows far back in there history aswell as there crossbows they could easily put a hole into a Roman Legion.

As the said professor was fond of saying, never ever use the words 'of course.' That is called begging the question.

Obviously the largeness in force is proof enough of superiorority in this case, but even if the Romans wanted to get into a close range battle they would literally have to go through enough arrows to block out the sun....

Since if we do this right lets view this a RC can fire if a average archer uses it 10-15 Arrows a minute now lets time that by 50,000

10 X 50,000 = 500,000

The same apply to the penning of the word 'obvious.'

With all that arrows, the Persians were unable to beat through the Spartans without envoloping them in the rear, and it took Parthians three shock charge by their super heavy cavalry to break the Roman lines in Carrhae. Massive missile fires had been breached by heavy infantry, in numerous wars and battles.

To put a perspective into those numbers, what happened when Xenophon went to Persia?

[IDonT]

Crossbows had a significant impact on European warfare when they reached Europe around the 10th century AD. It had such an impact that the Pope banned them in wars against fellow christians. The ability of an ordinary man, with minimal training, to kill a professional warrior, a knight, with full plate armor was disturbing.

This is a well known fact that most people in the west accepts. Yet it is hard to accept that such impact also occured in China 1400 years before?

Is it so hard to believe that crossbow had a similar significant impact on China when it was first invented in 400 BC? The Crossbow changed the way Chinese armies fought. The charioted nobility no longer ruled the battlefield.

One of the things that happen was the "democratization of warfare." Large conscript armies were possible, up to 500,000 in some cases. Conscripts trained and drilled properly are just as lethal and disciplined as professional life long soldiers. Napolean and the French would later call this Levee en Mass.

One more thing, there is a huge difference between the power and ease of use of Persian and Parthian recurved bows and a Han Crossbow.

[Triple C]

Crossbows had a significant impact on European warfare when they reached Europe around the 10th century AD. It had such an impact that the Pope banned them in wars against fellow christians. The ability of an ordinary man, with minimal training, to kill a professional warrior, a knight, with full plate armor was disturbing.Is it so hard to believe that crossbow had a similar significant impact on China when it was first invented in 400 BC? The Crossbow changed the way Chinese armies fought. The charioted nobility no longer ruled the battlefield.

LoL, I know that. However, to keep things in perspective, the knightly class was more tribal warrior than soldier, found of ceremonial, honorable battle. The discipline, cohension and tactical skill of most medieval armies were atrocious. That can be demonstrated by their poor operational mobility, inconclusive campaigns, and the number of times an army had been provoked into a willy-nilly charge by the slightest of harrassing fire. The knights were also horsemen. It would put your case to doubt, I think, when one recall that the effect of the crossbow and later the arquebus was the Renaissance in classical infantry tactics, particulary Roman.

I had asked and not recieved. What was the draw weight of those crossbows? How much armor do they penetrate? What was their rate of fire? Could they, or could they not, penetrate Roman shield and armor? What are the sources backing those claims? From what Chinese sources I do possess, Chinese armor was not particularly remarkable in protection levels, in that, they were, in my humble opinion, no different from armor forged at the same period by other civilizations. The crossbow that had such a devasting effect on Christian horse lords were of an enormously heavy type and had to be loaded by foot. For the same reason, the rate of fire from those troops were low and they were considered highly vulnerable at hand to hand combat. Repeating crossbow amend the rate of fire but then it sacreficed power.

Technological evolution in offense and defense is dialectic. If Chinese crossbows were built for power, I would expect to see a hastened progress towards heavier armor. Yet, I do not see that in the sources that I have access to.

One of the things that happen was the "democratization of warfare." Large conscript armies were possible, up to 500,000 in some cases. Conscripts trained and drilled properly are just as lethal and disciplined as professional life long soldiers. Napolean and the French would later call this Levee en Mass.

One more thing, there is a huge difference between the power and ease of use of Persian and Parthian recurved bows and a Han Crossbow.

The Roman Legions, if you would kindly allow me, WERE composed of ANY able-bodied man WILLING to serve. Peasant draft armies had always existed. And everytime they assembled, they were crushed by the pros. Levie en mass, in military history, refers to a totally different phenomena: a national army, composed of all able-bodied men of military age, and mated to a nation in which citizenship equates military service.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Conscripts trained and drilled properly are just as lethal and disciplined as professional life long soldiers" is a self-evident statement. But the words in bold is key. The whole problem of conscript armies is that they were often victim to their own success--too many men, too little time & too few resources to train and equip them properly. In fact, Sir John Keegan believes that the inherent flaws behind the concept of levee en masse is reponsible to the bloodshed of World War I, when people who were not born to be fighters were made to do fighter's work.

And we are talking about pre-gunpower revolution here. Combat with a ranged weapon was psychologically easier than fighting hand to hand; that much we know.

Given the lack of projectile lethality, and the missile troops' natural inclination to delay the decisive moment of close combat to the last, there will be considerable shock in encountering an army that fight primarily hand to hand.

To compound the problem, that will be a disciplined, professional army, well drilled and battle-hardened. There are no measure of armies until they clash; many empires that were considered invincible was destroyed by the first alien army that simply does not play the game their way.

As to the skill required for recurved bow and crossbow, I agree with you there man. Crossbow as a class was a whole lot easier to shoot. BUT, in my opinin, the effect of armor piercing bolts were amplified in spite of their dubious lethality on medieval knights precisely because they were a mounted, primitive & tribal warriors, most of whom lacked a sound grip on tactics, and--more importantly--as a moneyed class from a backwater society, far too few in numbers, and riding what essentially is a hard to control animal which, were shot, were inclined to bolt its heavily-laden rider into a pit of mud to drown. That means more projectiles for a small number of targets precisely vulnerable to the type of weapon being used.

My point does not lay with weapons but with tactics. Foundementally, I see this debate as a disagreement between the relative effectiveness of two tactical systems. And it has not been proven to me that a versatile, professional, combined arms shock army was inferior to a stand-off projectile army.


The only measure of armies is battle. Until there has been a confirmed one of relevant size ;) I will maintain that everything we have said are pure speculation and personal opinion.

It's a fun debate; eager for your reply on my thoughts.

Post Script:
It is believed that the disappearance of chariotiers had little to do with crossbows. Disciplined bronze infantry and cavalry would have no trouble at all at dispatching their kind.

[IDonT]

I had asked and not recieved. What was the draw weight of those crossbows? How much armor do they penetrate? What was their rate of fire? Could they, or could they not, penetrate Roman shield and armor? What are the sources backing those claims? From what Chinese sources I do possess, Chinese armor was not particularly remarkable in protection levels, in that, they were, in my humble opinion, no different from armor forged at the same period by other civilizations. The crossbow that had such a devasting effect on Christian horse lords were of an enormously heavy type and had to be loaded by foot. For the same reason, the rate of fire from those troops were low and they were considered highly vulnerable at hand to hand combat. Repeating crossbow amend the rate of fire but then it sacreficed power.

Chinese crossbows came in several levels of weight categories, including the extra heavy types. Can they penetrate a Roman sheild wall? We can never know because a modern recreated crossbow will never be similar as to the one the Han's use. From drawings during the Three Kingdoms period, they draw their crossbows with their feet.

Technological evolution in offense and defense is dialectic. If Chinese crossbows were built for power, I would expect to see a hastened progress towards heavier armor. Yet, I do not see that in the sources that I have access to.

Heavier armor is one way to defeat missile weaponry, the other is mobility. In face of greater missile weaponry, China developed looser formation and mobility instead. Their main adversaries at the time were the horse archer armies of the Hun.

The Roman Legions, if you would kindly allow me, WERE composed of ANY able-bodied man WILLING to serve. Peasant draft armies had always existed. And everytime they assembled, they were crushed by the pros. Levie en mass, in military history, refers to a totally different phenomena: a national army, composed of all able-bodied men of military age, and mated to a nation in which citizenship equates military service.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Conscripts trained and drilled properly are just as lethal and disciplined as professional life long soldiers" is a self-evident statement. But the words in bold is key. The whole problem of conscript armies is that they were often victim to their own success--too many men, too little time & too few resources to train and equip them properly. In fact, Sir John Keegan believes that the inherent flaws behind the concept of levee en masse is reponsible to the bloodshed of World War I, when people who were not born to be fighters were made to do fighter's work.

A Roman soldier underwent 6 months of training before being sent to a legion. A chinese conscript underwent 1 year of training before being sent to their unit to serve 1 year. For a total military obligation of 2 years. After two years they return to their homes to serve as a ready reserve.

China had levee en mass. All men were required to register for a national register and MUST serve 2 years with few exceptions. The Han had a national standing army composed of "citizens" that had the backing of the state. They were fed, trained, armed and led by the state.

In some instances, particularly during Wudi reign, the majority of the army were professional lifers. Professional lifers composed the main bulk of "expeditionary" forces for long duration (10+ years) campaign against the Hun

And we are talking about pre-gunpower revolution here. Combat with a ranged weapon was psychologically easier than fighting hand to hand; that much we know.

Given the lack of projectile lethality, and the missile troops' natural inclination to delay the decisive moment of close combat to the last, there will be considerable shock in encountering an army that fight primarily hand to hand

The Romans had a natural inclination to close with their enemies as fast possible. Consider their shock when they are met with thousands of arrows. Incurring casualties without the ability to inflict some yourself is one of the fastest way to lose your morale.

This inclination to close rapidly was used to great affect by Hannibal.

To compound the problem, that will be a disciplined, professional army, well drilled and battle-hardened. There are no measure of armies until they clash; many empires that were considered invincible was destroyed by the first alien army that simply does not play the game their way.

The same could be said with the Romans. Their 600 year long stalemate with the Persians attest to that. An enemy that doesn't play their game.

My point does not lay with weapons but with tactics. Foundementally, I see this debate as a disagreement between the relative effectiveness of two tactical systems. And it has not been proven to me that a versatile, professional, combined arms shock army was inferior to a stand-off projectile army.

From point of view, it is the Han that is the combined armies army. In addition to crossbow and cavalry, they have a heavily armored infantry to will seek to close with the enemy. The stereotype that a Chinese army is a large untrained human wave/horde is a construct of 19th and early 20th century bias. The Chinese army of antiquity was a well trained and well drilled force.

The Roman army, although professional, is not combined arms.

It's a fun debate; eager for your reply on my thoughts.

Same to you

[IDonT]

Crossbow Bolts
YouTube - Terra-cotta Warriors and Horses兵马俑：�活的军团2-3Bloody Bronze血色�铜

YouTube - Terra-cotta Warriors and Horses兵马俑：�活的军团2-2Bloody Bronze血色�铜
Look at 3:22 for the re-inactment draw.

Off topic:
See this extended trailer of the Battle of Red Cliff - One of China's celebrated battles. Directed by John Woo

YouTube - RED CLIFF Special Trailer

[Triple C]

Heavier armor is one way to defeat missile weaponry, the other is mobility. In face of greater missile weaponry, China developed looser formation and mobility instead. Their main adversaries at the time were the horse archer armies of the Hun.

I am pretty sure Rommans were capable of loose order formations. Their manipular system was developed fighting Sarmatians who used slingers and shock heavy horse; each manipul could act indepedently of the main body and we know they could fight so as such if so ordered. Remember, the raison d'etre for abandoning hoplite armor was mobility.

A Roman soldier underwent 6 months of training before being sent to a legion. A chinese conscript underwent 1 year of training before being sent to their unit to serve 1 year. For a total military obligation of 2 years. After two years they return to their homes to serve as a ready reserve.

Post Marian Reforms, a soldier's service was not terminated upon the completion of a campaign. A tour of duty was twenty-five years; a legionairre was in for the duration. One of the virtues of Imperial Russian Army was the long service it required; this allowed an amazing accretion of combat experience within an organization. The Romans were volunteers.

A Roman Legion that was not fighting was drilling. It would appear that they might have made a difference between bootcamp and advanced schools. We know by early Empire they had elaborate assault drills for breaking in a city. I doubt that was incorporated into basic training.

he Romans had a natural inclination to close with their enemies as fast possible. Consider their shock when they are met with thousands of arrows. Incurring casualties without the ability to inflict some yourself is one of the fastest way to lose your morale.
This inclination to close rapidly was used to great affect by Hannibal.

Not neccessarily true. When a missile army failed to put distance between it and the attacking enemy or was compelled to fight hand to hand, either by the force of circumstances or went to the attack before they were ready, slaughter would visit them.

Thousands of arrows I imagine would be rather common place after the Persian Wars broke out. That's what the terrico formation was for. I doubt heavy crossbows would be the standard equipment for Han troops. Even so, with riot shield sized reinforced scutum, we are effectively talking about not just armor penetration but penetration through an intermediary obstacle than unto armor, which sort of changes the complexion of the thing.

Scipio hurled the trick back at Hannibal at Zama, when he merged three echeolons of Roman Legionaires and put the princips and triarii at his wings. That was impressive drilling preformed by pre-Marian troops.

Their 600 year long stalemate with the Persians attest to that. An enemy that doesn't play their game.

Exactly. Against a sophisticated missile army that was fought a nomad battle, they tied, and made it as far as Bagdad.

From point of view, it is the Han that is the combined armies army. In addition to crossbow and cavalry, they have a heavily armored infantry to will seek to close with the enemy. The stereotype that a Chinese army is a large untrained human wave/horde is a construct of 19th and early 20th century bias. The Chinese army of antiquity was a well trained and well drilled force.

I would be a fool to think Han Chinese army as an untrained horde. The Han army rated amongs the best in the classical world. If they were not, we would not have this discussion. I was instead pointing out to that the Romans made extensive use of allies and mercenaries--auxilliaries--that until emperor Constantius [correction: Dioletian] trained and fought with the Legion to which it was attatched. They could be anything from heavy cavalry to light infantry to archers. And they were powerfully supported by siege egines deployed as field artillery.

China had levee en mass. All men were required to register for a national register and MUST serve 2 years with few exceptions. The Han had a national standing army composed of "citizens" that had the backing of the state. They were fed, trained, armed and led by the state.

Interesting. They still faced the delimma of how to train and equip so many men adequately to overcome a large and professional force inherent in such a draft system.

Pity my browser does not display the youtube vids you posted, they are listed as not available. I have always been fascinated by the Xin army, particulary their highly advanced bronze weaponry.

[troung]

From point of view, it is the Han that is the combined armies army. In addition to crossbow and cavalry, they have a heavily armored infantry to will seek to close with the enemy. The stereotype that a Chinese army is a large untrained human wave/horde is a construct of 19th and early 20th century bias. The Chinese army of antiquity was a well trained and well drilled force.
In some instances, particularly during Wudi reign, the majority of the army were professional lifers. Professional lifers composed the main bulk of "expeditionary" forces for long duration (10+ years) campaign against the Hun

For short periods one can find a well trained Chinese army during each dynasty and for long periods a pretty lousy force. The Han were capable for a short period, campaigns on the steppe ended with the result of the death of their cavalry. Wu-di ultimately failed, wasted a lot of money and killed off his army while the nomads survived and were back on the attack before he died. Even then with the amount of his own men he burned through for a failure, well trained and drilled is suspect over time and well led should be put aside. IIRC the defeats of 129BC were blamed on poorly trained conscripts and Li Kuang-Li's armies were gang pressed (and died mostly on the way to battle) and by 90BC the army was falling apart on the frontiers.

[zraver]

The Roman army, although professional, is not combined arms.

Uhmm...... An early Imperial period legion had as many as 5200 legionares and an equal number of auxillery troops (Engineers/feild artillery, Cavalry, archers, slingers, javaliners, light infantry etc. It was a combined arms force and minus tribal allies the aux troops were thouroughly proffesional enlisting for 20-25 years in trade for Roman Citzenship for them and thier familes at the edn of the service.

[Triple C]

Thanks for the clarification Z. Trough, you know a heck lot more about this than me and I am an ethnic Chinese!

I find it irksome that people thought of the Roman Legion as a pure heavy infantry force. That in my opinion does not reflect the historical evidence available. Cesaer had never hestitated to use his Gaullic Heavy Cavalry as a shock force. Vespasian and Titus used Germanic Cavalry as their honor guards on and off the field, and from surviving historiagraphy, they fought as shock troops with spatha and were fully armored. I don't know much about their missile troops though, other than they were present.

All of those auxilliary troops stayed with the same legion throughout the history of the unit. They were organic components and I expect their team-work to be superb.