Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 169

Thread: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

  1. #121

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Han crossbow in matter of fact have more power than even mediaval crossbow because 3 time more power strock.If draw weight is the same Han crossbow can sent 3 time more force than mediaval one

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nese-Crossbows

  2. #122

    Default

    Even no one test han crossbow against Roman plate armor but someone test longbow with mediaval plate armor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
    So if longbow with have power = 1500 inch pounds can penetrate plate armor han crossbow which have 3676.5 inch pounds in power could do it better.
    Roman armor and mediaval plate armor both made of steel Roman one weight around 15 lbs while mediaval one around 33-55 lbs .But mediaval plate protect more part of body so I assume that both typt of armor not difference much in thickness.
    From this I can assume that han crossbow can easily penetrate Roman segmentata .

    Han after Wu di can fill cavalry in massive. They raise 300,000 horses for war.Include massive archer and crossbow.Roman army base too much on elite heavy infantry.They use cavalry just 15% of total army archer only 5%.That made Rome formidable in close terrain or hill .
    If they fight against strong cavalry army in flat terrain they likely to lose. For example Battle of the Trebia / Battle of Cannae/ Battle of Carrhae /Battle of Adrianople/ .
    Against Sassanid Rome lost more than win Battle of Edessa Rome lost all entire army of 70,000 men Emperor Valerian was captured.Battle of Ctesiphon Rome win at first but lost later because of logistic problem.Battle of Samarra Sassanid win Roman Emperor Julian died.
    Rome gain some advantage in hill and close terrain because of their elite infantry. But Han gain advantage in flat terrain because of their strong and massive cavalry.
    Last edited by Radzeer; May 14, 2014 at 10:54 PM.

  3. #123

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    not sure what you trying to say, but you cannot compare two empires by single weapon type...

  4. #124

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    As usual with the Rome vs Han cavalry discussion it's pointless citing Cannae/Trebia since any Roman power that's going to clash with the Chinese will have a cavalry component far more akin to the later empire than the republic. Both civilizations were remarkably similar in being - eventually - highly influenced by steppe cultures, and enrolling steppe warriors en masse. A lot of the 'Chinese' cavalry being touted here were actually steppe auxiliaries - and it's highly unlikely a Rome in a geographical position to face China wouldn't be fielding plenty of the same.

    Also something generally overlooked about Carrhae was that most of the Roman loss occurred on the chaotic retreat rather than the battle itself (and the only Roman cavalry were Gallic levies who were squandered foolishly). In general – Parthians/Sassanids tried to avoid pitched battles with Roman forces, relying more on attrition, so the cavalry factor was maybe not so decisive - though of course the lesson of Cannae would always stand: if you have enough cavalry and get round the back of 'em...

  5. #125

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Sassanid can beat Rome in battle field many time in very decisive way like battle of samarra/Battle of Barbalissos/Battle of Edessa/Battle of Misikhe
    Sometime they avoid to fight Rome in battle not because they can't win. But It just safer and cheaper way to win.Why they have to lost their skill troop when they can let the nature deal with their enemy.



  6. #126

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    When an enemy is rampaging right through your homeland as the Romans did more than once with the Sassanids (but not vice versa) and you do nothing but shadow them, it's a very clear indication that you at least (as opposed to armchair generals in the distant future) are not confident of winning.

  7. #127

    Default

    The fall of Western Roman Empire possible come from side effect of Han Xiongnu war. Han and their ally drive enemy tribe Westward.They strike other tribe and make them migrat to Westward like domino.When Hun appear to Europe .They strike German tribe to South.They migrant to Roman for food and land. Then migration period that make Western Roman fall begin.

    Even Roman army is very strong .They are so slow. I read some content about falling of Rome. There are so many factor and I notice that .Roman army was so slow because they base on heavy infantry. They can't react in time. They let enemy sack and move around in their empire for a long time before Roman army could engage them . Hun Sack about half of their Empire before Rome engage them.And the next year Hun just come back and sack for more.Many German tribe do the same sack and move and Roman hardly did anything.

    So if Roman face armay with massive cavalry as Han even if Han lost in battle (not likely) .They just use their cavalry army strike unprotected city sack and then move to sack other city .That probably make Rome fall.

    This tactic from Central Asia normad can't underestimate. They can be major factor that made Western Roman Nortern China under Jin and Gupta Empire fall.Ottoman empire that made Eastern Roman Empire fall also original from Turk from Central Asia steppe.

    But Sassanid already beat Rome in many battle.
    Last edited by Radzeer; May 14, 2014 at 10:55 PM.

  8. #128

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Rome vs Han...not again...

    I'm the guy who wrote about the Crossbow post and I'll give you some insight.

    No, the English Longbow can not penetrate Medeival Plate. It can barely penetrate Coat of Plates/Chainmail. Watch Mike Loathes and he is an actual historians who have more accurate replicas. Lorica Segmentata is about 18-20 gauge so about 1.2 mm of steel. From modern tests the Longbow of about 120 pounds can barely even pierce 0.3 from Coat of plates.

    Medieval crossbow penetration on plate was about no more than an inch I believe. Plus the Knight would be wearing padding underneath. Now keep in mind most Han crossbows, the heaviest would be spanned by a Windlass(the 500 pound ones) and the normal ones would be spanned using two feet sitting down. Han cavalry carried probally a 100 pound crossbow. Now keep in mind Roman Legionaires wear padding and carry Scutum.

    The size of the Han cavalry is very skepitcal. Usually numbers like 300,000 mean "large army"

    Roman cavalry was about 10 percent in the 2nd Punic War with no archers. 20 percent in the Imperial times with a fairly large archer body. 23 percent in the Late Empire.

    From Trebia to Adrianople? Wow a big shift in age. The Roman cavalry in the 2nd Punic War was fairly good actually. Pre-Marian was more heavy infantry focused. Fall era, most Roman cavalry was a bit more vital.

    Keep in mind Valerian's army just got done fighting the Goths and was mutinous. Rome lost Ctestihon due to Procinus didn't like up with Julian. Yes Sassanids defeated Rome many times but Rome too defeated the Sassanids many times. (Shapur go beat right after Edessa.)

    No Hun and Germanic sacks were not due to infantry being slow. Roman army at the time was designed to be more mobile. Keep in mind Rome fought a civil war with Constantine, Constans, an almost civil war with Julian, with Valentinian, a dispute between Valens and Gratian, Theodosis war, a Civil War in Gaul and Britian in 410.

    Yes Han would "win" in my opinion when in the steppes. Han would easily maul Roman supply lines, unless they were in a city. But lets not overthink it.

    From what I know, Rome used a bow based on the Syrians/Sarmatians and later replaced it with Turkic bow in Byzantine time. So of course the Roman bow is way weaker than the crossbow. Imperial Roman cavalry was fairly decent but Han although many being militia has more and better weapons.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; May 06, 2014 at 10:03 AM.

  9. #129

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by nosta View Post
    Sassanid can beat Rome in battle field many time in very decisive way like battle of samarra/Battle of Barbalissos/Battle of Edessa/Battle of Misikhe
    Sometime they avoid to fight Rome in battle not because they can't win. But It just safer and cheaper way to win.Why they have to lost their skill troop when they can let the nature deal with their enemy.

    May i remind you the romans sacked Ctesiphon two times during Sassanian times, while them were not able to take constantinople and that it was emperor Heraclius who broke the backs of the persians and left them weak, for the arab invasion. So while its true the Sassanians Scored many victories against the romans, in the end Rome would outlast the Sassanian Empire for 800 years.

  10. #130

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by juanplay View Post
    May i remind you the romans sacked Ctesiphon two times during Sassanian times, while them were not able to take constantinople and that it was emperor Heraclius who broke the backs of the persians and left them weak, for the arab invasion. So while its true the Sassanians Scored many victories against the romans, in the end Rome would outlast the Sassanian Empire for 800 years.
    May i remind you that what Heraclious did was leading a Guerrilla force in to Persia that raided and pillaged. 90 % of the field battles fought Romans against Persians, were won by the Persian through all wars, which is the reason why the Romans focused on their fortifications which created a status quo as long as the romans avoided to offer battles.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  11. #131

    Default

    Did you see the test.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk .It clearly show that long bow can penetrate plate armor. I read some topic about longbow test.Most test the bow went through the mail layer but just not penetrate all textile layer. From wiki even not 100% correct it better than nothing

    Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28") bow, shooting at 10 yards; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards.[31] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary "Jack coat" armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). ("Jack coat" armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8". Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3" penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3" of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (1.2mm) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated to a shallow depth, the other arrows not at all. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.

    That longbow but Han crossbow have many version 6 dan version made 3676.5 inch pounds or about double power of longbow .8 dan version that draw by foot make 4902 inch lbs triple power of longbow.Full plate armor from mediaval weight around 33-55 lbs.Lorica segmentata weight only 15 lbs.

    From the test I think Han crossbow could penetrate even Lorica Segmentata .And it likely to penetrate even Scutum and Segmentata in the same time.Even 6 dan version can't 8 dan should.Or event it can't penetrate both just aim at naked arm or leg .Wooden shield can't be a problem. Roman use Auxilia even more that Legion. Shooting pass chain mail is must be easier job.

    The best thing about Crossbow is you can train crossbowmen in 2 week .He can kill the best heavy infantry .If China lost they just draft the new men in 2 week .In Roman side they lost of elite heavy infantry is very hard to replace.That made Han gain big adventage in attitrion war.That why musketeer beat knight.
    Last edited by Radzeer; May 14, 2014 at 10:55 PM.

  12. #132

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Uh watch the video...it did not penetrate all the way through.

    Uh you do realize comparing weights of the LS and the Medieval plate means you must compare the just the chest Cuirass..not the arm and legs. If you want to compare Full plate you have to throw in the Legionaires greaves and Manica. Plus the Shield of the Legionaire. Penetrate the Scutum and Seg at the same time? I doubt it.

    Romans used Auxilia more than Legion?...eh half right. More Auxiliaries but the Legion were primarly the majority of field armies.

    Neither Han or Rome can march that far.....
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; May 06, 2014 at 07:33 PM.

  13. #133

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    not sure where this idea of crossbows being easier to train than a bow came from. When people say that, they are thinking of the 120+ lb longbows that require training to be able to draw that amount of weight. Shooting a bow isn't that hard. Most ancient and medieval bows were not nearly as high draw weight as those medieval longbows. The main difference between bows and crossbows is the rate of fire, the shot trajectory, and the power of the shot (although that mostly depends on the specific crossbow or bow). When I was a kid, maybe 10-12 years old, I went to a birthday party that was at an archery place. I was shooting a youth bow and hitting targets at maybe 20m away. We're not talking about being able to shoot an arrow from a 150 lb bow and hit a small target 400 yards away. We're just talking about being able to shoot an arrow from maybe a 60 lb bow and have it land in a general area 250 yards away.

    I'd hesitate to say that either the bow or crossbow is harder to learn how to use. If anyone claims that, prove it. You could take the average medieval levy and train him to use an average poundage bow in a very short amount of time. He just needs to be able to get roughly the right arc for different ranges to put arrows in the general area of a formation of enemies. The crossbow isn't significantly easier. You still draw back the string (usually by hand, with later more powerful crossbows with a windlass or whatever), you still aim to put a projectile at a certain range.

    The main differences are tactical. A crossbow can stay loaded and ready to shoot as soon as an enemy appears, so it's useful in sieges. A crossbow has a flatter trajectory, which restricts its ability to shoot over friendly units or obstacles, or to arc over shields or walls or whatever. A crossbow bolt starts with more energy, but loses a lot of energy over long range, so an arrow will usually have more energy at maximum range than a crossbow, whereas the crossbow will have more energy at close range. A bow can reload quicker, but that just means it burns through ammo much faster, and also tires out the archer waaayyy more.

  14. #134
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,704

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    A monkey could shoot a crossbow effectively if thought how to reload and aim, which require simple skills. Regular bows are pretty tiring and utterly pathetic on untrained hands unless used in huge numbers, using them right required far more skill, never mind mastering. Also remember the general bias against the bow (or anything ranged) in medieval Europe.

    Not saying that specifically one weapon is better than the other, as you point out both has it uses, but the crossbow indeed required a lot less skill to use it acceptably (mostly from the fact aiming was pretty straightforward given you couldn't make arching volleys).
    Last edited by Lord Baal; May 06, 2014 at 11:08 PM.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

  15. #135

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    A monkey could shoot a crossbow effectively if thought how to reload and aim, which require simple skills. Regular bows are pretty tiring and utterly pathetic on untrained hands unless used in huge numbers, using them right required far more skill, never mind mastering. Also remember the general bias against the bow (or anything ranged) in medieval Europe.
    I'd disagree with your idea that bows are "pathetic" in untrained hands. If my 10 year old self who had never held a bow before could hit close range targets with less than an hour of training, then your average levy or militiaman could be trained in a couple of weeks (maybe a couple of days) to an acceptable degree of effectiveness with a bow. Less if those levy had ever hunted with a bow before.

    And a crossbow would only be less tiring because it shoots slower......remember, many crossbows were still drawn with the hand or using your legs or whatever, and they had generally higher draw weight than a bow. Shoot a bow at the same rate of fire as a crossbow and it would probably be less tiring since you're pulling less poundage.

    You guys keep claiming that using a bow requires more "skill". Prove it.

  16. #136

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    'Prove it' how? It's simply a widely acknowledged idea with a good deal of common sense and historical precedent backing it up. Frankly your 10-year play bow is as useful an analogy for this as your water pistol would be for musketry.

    We're talking a massively powerful bow capable of hitting armored moving targets, aside from the strength required that takes a deeply ingrained intuitive skill that can't really be learned, only practiced.

    Sure it takes strength and training to load and aim a crossbow. But it's the same kind of rote skill as it takes to prime and fire a musket - though of course some people are far better shots. To use a war bow effectively requires the ability to haul this massive weight to your ear or chin and, in a single action, release it without 'aiming' as you do with a crossbow or rifle - you could, but the energy required is enormous. A true bowman puts the shot where they want it by intuition, not drill yard aiming (the same is of course semi-true of master crossbowmen, but to a far lesser extent).

  17. #137

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    The crossbow is easier to use. Period.

    Think about it. An average peasant sometimes doesn't have the coordination, strength, or hand memory to pull a 120 lb English longbow and fire it accuratley. But he can pull a 200 lb crossobw with both hands and cock it in place.

  18. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blarni View Post
    'Prove it' how? It's simply a widely acknowledged idea with a good deal of common sense and historical precedent backing it up. Frankly your 10-year play bow is as useful an analogy for this as your water pistol would be for musketry.
    saying "everyone agrees, it's common sense" doesn't mean anything. Lots of people also think medieval swords weighed 40 pounds, or that medieval knights were clumsy clanking brutes who couldn't get up if they fell over. It's the same kind of commonly-cited catchphrase of saying "crossbows are easier to use than a bow"

    Quote Originally Posted by Blarni View Post
    We're talking a massively powerful bow capable of hitting armored moving targets, aside from the strength required that takes a deeply ingrained intuitive skill that can't really be learned, only practiced.

    Sure it takes strength and training to load and aim a crossbow. But it's the same kind of rote skill as it takes to prime and fire a musket - though of course some people are far better shots. To use a war bow effectively requires the ability to haul this massive weight to your ear or chin and, in a single action, release it without 'aiming' as you do with a crossbow or rifle - you could, but the energy required is enormous. A true bowman puts the shot where they want it by intuition, not drill yard aiming (the same is of course semi-true of master crossbowmen, but to a far lesser extent).
    if we were talking about exclusively 120lb longbows and an archer capable of hitting an individual moving target at long range, I'd agree with you. But I thought I made it pretty damn clear that the majority of archers in history, especially in the ancient period, were using much much lighter bows, and they didn't need to snipe a moving target at long range, only bombard a general area with arrows.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    The crossbow is easier to use. Period.

    Think about it. An average peasant sometimes doesn't have the coordination, strength, or hand memory to pull a 120 lb English longbow and fire it accuratley. But he can pull a 200 lb crossobw with both hands and cock it in place.
    again we're not talking about english longbows of very high draw weight. We're talking about the much more common (especially in the ancient period) "regular" bows, with much lower draw weight. Again, if you want to claim that a crossbow is easier to use than a 120 lb english longbow, I think I'd agree with you. But saying that crossbows OVERALL are easier than bows because 120 lb longbows are hard to use is using an extreme example to try and prove the average. It's like saying that running is a hard skill to learn because it takes enormous amounts of training to run in the olympics.
    Last edited by Radzeer; May 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM.

  19. #139

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Training for the same level of effectiveness....a peasant with a wooden 40 pound self bow would only scratch a charging Knight. Give him a 200 lb crossbow and he can kill the Knight.

    A fired a 50 pound compound bow, and a 50 pound hunting crossbow....the crossbow was easier to hit target in my opinion.
    Last edited by HuangCaesar; May 07, 2014 at 10:34 AM.

  20. #140
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,704

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Think of this, mercenaries where generally armed with crossbows instead of bows... there's a reason for that.

    Again, it's simple common sense. The crossbow is easier to use, require minimal training and little strength to operate.

    Learning how to load/fire a crossbow mildly effectively is far easier than doing the same with a regular bow (never mind an English Long bow).
    Last edited by Lord Baal; May 07, 2014 at 12:27 PM.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •