The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

[RGA]

Bow is not that hard to learn. Come on, it is one of the human's very first weapons. Problem is: a minimal training can help you familiarize yourself with the bow and get somewhat the finger tip's feeling, but cannot help you build your strength. Ancient armies were full of bowmen who normaly used their bow for nothing more than hunting, they could easily hit bull's eye at close range but never had the strength to pull powerful war bow and thus severely lacked range.

Crossbow overcame this weakness, so it's safe to say that a war crossbow is definitely easier to use than a war bow. But it also has drawback on its own: it lacks the shock effect of bow due to the slower rate of fire. Skirmishing is not about accuracy, but the volume of fire power that could be thrown into enemy's direction, which will break enemy morale and cohesion.

[HuangCaesar]

Lacks shock effect? What does that mean.

Skirmishing can be about accuracy. A death will break cohesion much more than scratches.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Bow is not that hard to learn. Come on, it is one of the human's very first weapons. Problem is: a minimal training can help you familiarize yourself with the bow and get somewhat the finger tip's feeling, but cannot help you build your strength. Ancient armies were full of bowmen who normaly used their bow for nothing more than hunting, they could easily hit bull's eye at close range but never had the strength to pull powerful war bow and thus severely lacked range.

Crossbow overcame this weakness, so it's safe to say that a war crossbow is definitely easier to use than a war bow. But it also has drawback on its own: it lacks the shock effect of bow due to the slower rate of fire. Skirmishing is not about accuracy, but the volume of fire power that could be thrown into enemy's direction, which will break enemy morale and cohesion.

You are absolutely right. The Masterbowman of the Youtube time often haven't practiced more than 3 years and can hit within 10 seconds almost the same number of targets which are moving.

[DividingSolid]

Whoever is the invader will lose imo.

[Harnis]

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.

a 200 lb crossbow would require some kind of device to help draw it. That's getting into a whole other realm of weaponry, utilizing mechanical power rather than just the power of a human's arm.

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).

again, the "common sense" argument.
loading a bow is no more difficult than loading a crossbow.

Lacks shock effect? What does that mean.

Skirmishing can be about accuracy. A death will break cohesion much more than scratches.

bows are much more effective at laying down large volume of fire because of their greater reload. A crossbow reloads much slower, and is more like a sniper weapon.

It's like trying to say that sniper rifles are better than machine guns. It's a silly and pointless topic. It's two different weapons for different purposes.

[Lord Baal]

Not the common sense argument, it's simply common sense. Yeah, the easiness of loading means more shoots per minute, but that doesn't mean it's easier to aim correctly AND that if you land a hit it will penetrate armor for example, meanwhile a crossbow it's slower to load yes, but is far easier to aim (since you are forced to flat trajectories only, another disadvantage) and generally has far more force at short range.

It's slower to load but generally it would not require that much strength to do it and nothing to aim and fire, hence the "easiness", someone that haven't used a crossbow can learn how to operate in minutes and be mildy effective in hours/days all while the upper body strength is not an impediment.

[Harnis]

Not the common sense argument, it's simply common sense. Yeah, the easiness of loading means more shoots per minute, but that doesn't mean it's easier to aim correctly AND that if you land a hit it will penetrate armor for example, meanwhile a crossbow it's slower to load yes, but is far easier to aim (since you are forced to flat trajectories only, another disadvantage) and generally has far more force at short range.

stop claiming "it's common sense". It does nothing to further the argument.

while a crossbow has more force at close range, bolts lose lots of energy over long range, and since arrows are generally heavier, they retain more of their force at long range.

Again, as for being easier to aim, that only really applies at long range, where you need to arc the arrow a lot. At close range, the arrow is a mostly flat trajectory anyways.

It's slower to load but generally it would not require that much strength to do it and nothing to aim and fire, hence the "easiness", someone that haven't used a crossbow can learn how to operate in minutes and be mildy effective in hours/days all while the upper body strength is not an impediment.

what makes you think that pulling back a crossbow string "would not require much strength", but pulling back a bow string suddenly requires tons of upper body strength? How is pulling back a 150 lb crossbow "not much strength", but pulling back a 60-80 lb bow is somehow difficult? If a 10 year old kid with no previous experience or even really any previous labor to build strength can draw a 20-25 lb bow, what makes you think that drawing a 60-80 lb bow is an "impediment" for your typical farmer/levy/militia? But drawing a 150 lb crossbow is easy?

[Lord Baal]

stop claiming "it's common sense". It does nothing to further the argument.

I'm sorry you don't wanna agree with reality based on your 10 year old self experience.

while a crossbow has more force at close range, bolts lose lots of energy over long range, and since arrows are generally heavier, they retain more of their force at long range.

With range out of the way, power is an even more difficult subject to breach. In general, arrows weigh more than bolts, so they have a larger momentum (force) associated with them. However, a late Medieval crossbow bolt has a higher speed associated with it, which will overcome the lower mass. (the the force being equal to the mass times the square of the velocity).

Again, as for being easier to aim, that only really applies at long range, where you need to arc the arrow a lot. At close range, the arrow is a mostly flat trajectory anyways.

Yeah but at point blank range, the crossbow almost certainly had greater penetrating power than a long bow and that's certainly the range untrained peasants will fire both the crossbow and bow anyway.

what makes you think that pulling back a crossbow string "would not require much strength", but pulling back a bow string suddenly requires tons of upper body strength? How is pulling back a 150 lb crossbow "not much strength", but pulling back a 60-80 lb bow is somehow difficult? If a 10 year old kid with no previous experience or even really any previous labor to build strength can draw a 20-25 lb bow, what makes you think that drawing a 60-80 lb bow is an "impediment" for your typical farmer/levy/militia? But drawing a 150 lb crossbow is easy?

It's easier, most heavy crossbows weren't cocked by hand, but using the whole body strength or mechanical devices. In the instances where not you still only needed a short bust of energy to cock it and didn't need to maintain it while waiting and aiming.

Wanna know more? Check this out: http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=1...armies&f=false, http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

[Harnis]

I'm sorry you don't wanna agree with reality based on your 10 year old self experience.

that is being intentionally obtuse and trying to paint my argument as being based solely on that comment.

With range out of the way, power is an even more difficult subject to breach. In general, arrows weigh more than bolts, so they have a larger momentum (force) associated with them. However, a late Medieval crossbow bolt has a higher speed associated with it, which will overcome the lower mass. (the the force being equal to the mass times the square of the velocity).

we're not talking about highschool physics equations. First of all, force is not mass times the square of velocity. Force is mass times accelerations. Kinetic energy is 0.5 times the mass times the square of velocity. Get your physics straight if you want to talk about it. Momentum, which is what I am talking about, is equal to mass times velocity, so they play an equal part. The higher speed doesn't automatically overcome the lower mass. It overcomes it over short range, which I agreed with, but over long range, it loses lots of speed. The mass of the bolt or arrow stays the same in flight, only the velocity changes. At close range, it's the velocity that matters more. At maximum range, where the projectile has bled off tons of velocity, it's the mass of the projectile that determines how much of that original energy it retains.

It's easier, most heavy crossbows weren't cocked by hand, but using the whole body strength or mechanical devices. In the instances where not you still only needed a short bust of energy to cock it and didn't need to maintain it while waiting and aiming.

first of all, any comment about drawing a bow with the hand is just simplification. Everyone knows that drawing a bow DOES use the whole upper body strength, and it's mostly back and shoulder doing the work, not arms. If you want to get into mechanical devices used to load and fire the weapon, that is outside the comparison I was drawing. Using mechanical assistance enters a whole new category of weapon.

Wanna know more? Check this out: http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=1...armies&f=false, http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

that book is comparing crossbows to the medieval english longbow. I've already addressed that.

[Anna_Gein]

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.

A bit late for the party, especially for off-topic content but I would add that Heraclius forces were in large part made of Turkic contingent recruited by alliance.

[HuangCaesar]

a 200 lb crossbow would require some kind of device to help draw it. That's getting into a whole other realm of weaponry, utilizing mechanical power rather than just the power of a human's arm.
.

Not really. A 200 lb crossbow can be spanned with just a goat's foot. The 387 Chinese crossbow can be spanned with two feet.

Mechanical power means harder to use? Thats like saying it is simpler to run 2 miles than driving a car.

Heres the point. A simple peasant can kill an armoured opponent easier utilizing Crossbows rather than bows.

[Lord Baal]

Never mind, he's stuck in his delusion, I gave up.

[HuangCaesar]

I feel like he's full of Lindybeige.

[Harnis]

Not really. A 200 lb crossbow can be spanned with just a goat's foot. The 387 Chinese crossbow can be spanned with two feet.

Mechanical power means harder to use? Thats like saying it is simpler to run 2 miles than driving a car.

Heres the point. A simple peasant can kill an armoured opponent easier utilizing Crossbows rather than bows.

when did I say anything like mechanical power being harder to use????? Nothing even close to that. Misrepresenting my argument and then claiming I'm deluded must be pretty easy. And I'm not sure what this has to do with Lindybeige. I'm not referencing his videos, I don't even know what his stance would be on this topic. That is a simple attempt to discredit my opinions based on some perceived link to someone who you think is not reputable. But whatever, if you're done discussing it, that's fine.

[gladiator345]

all of them are in total war rome 2?what campaign is it?

[Cuong Vu]

I think the problem with this thread is that posters are usually quite knowledgeable about Roman military tactics and organization, yet poorly understand those of Han army. The second problem is the scarcity of sources regarding Han army tactics. Even someone who can read well Classical Chinese like me is in total despair when looking for Han army detailed battle tactics.

The Han army generally has these following characteristics that differentiate them from the armies in Chinese plains during the Warring States Period:

+ A healthy focus on cavalry
+ A heavy reliance on ranged units
+ A focus on mobilization

Chinese military tactics usually favour ranged units because their main enemy were steppe horse archers. The major daunting task posing towards any Chinese army who wished to conquer the vast steppe region is logistics. A large powerful Xiongnu army could avoid pitched battle and retreated deep into the steppe, far beyond the reach of Han supply lines. An army heavily depended upon infantry is useless in such a battlefield. This has not just been beautifully illustrated during the reign of Han Gaozu, but also up to the Song dynasty, where an army full of cavalry could easily annihilate an army composed mainly of infantry.

For this reason, Han army would gear totally towards light cavalry and massed crossbow units.

If you guys then say a Roman army could defeat any Han army in an infantry-based battle, then I wholeheartedly agree. The Roman legionaries were no doubt the best infantry army in the world. But if you guys then put these units in a steppe plain, they suddenly look useless. Sure, you could say you have a bunch of auxillaries tagging along, but that just poses even more burden on your supply base.

The Shiji of Sima Qian gave a good description of the Han's Mobei campaign against the Xiongnu. The army that won the day was the cavalry. Indeed, any, ANY, power who wish to be the master of the steppes MUST possess an army that made up of predominantly CAVALRY. Infantrymen could be said to be utterly useless.

[RGA]

I think the problem with this thread is that posters are usually quite knowledgeable about Roman military tactics and organization, yet poorly understand those of Han army. The second problem is the scarcity of sources regarding Han army tactics. Even someone who can read well Classical Chinese like me is in total despair when looking for Han army detailed battle tactics.

The Han army generally has these following characteristics that differentiate them from the armies in Chinese plains during the Warring States Period:

+ A healthy focus on cavalry
+ A heavy reliance on ranged units
+ A focus on mobilization

Chinese military tactics usually favour ranged units because their main enemy were steppe horse archers. The major daunting task posing towards any Chinese army who wished to conquer the vast steppe region is logistics. A large powerful Xiongnu army could avoid pitched battle and retreated deep into the steppe, far beyond the reach of Han supply lines. An army heavily depended upon infantry is useless in such a battlefield. This has not just been beautifully illustrated during the reign of Han Gaozu, but also up to the Song dynasty, where an army full of cavalry could easily annihilate an army composed mainly of infantry.

For this reason, Han army would gear totally towards light cavalry and massed crossbow units.

If you guys then say a Roman army could defeat any Han army in an infantry-based battle, then I wholeheartedly agree. The Roman legionaries were no doubt the best infantry army in the world. But if you guys then put these units in a steppe plain, they suddenly look useless. Sure, you could say you have a bunch of auxillaries tagging along, but that just poses even more burden on your supply base.

The Shiji of Sima Qian gave a good description of the Han's Mobei campaign against the Xiongnu. The army that won the day was the cavalry. Indeed, any, ANY, power who wish to be the master of the steppes MUST possess an army that made up of predominantly CAVALRY. Infantrymen could be said to be utterly useless.

All is true, except that Chinese Han was not a nomadic kingdom. It had a lot of big cities, which required infantry to protect. Han cavalry could evade battle, but Roman legions would just take down city after city systematically, slowly strangle enemy supply network and force them either to accept battle or face disintegration from within (i.e. treason, desertion, etc.) That was the tactic used by Marius in the Jugurthine war against his evasive Numidian opponents, and it worked pretty well.

[HuangCaesar]

Han Crossbows can range up to about the same power if not more than European Medieval crossbows. Plus they are way more accurate than even normal bows due to their large bowspan. It would probably go through the Scutum and Lorica Hamata. The Byzantine Princess Ana Kommene accounts how European crossbows can "not only pierce their armor but their shields, through and through." Ana Kommene existed in the early Medieval period, when they were still using 100-200 pound crossbows. Han average crossbow draw weight is about 387 lbs, and the higher powerstroke gives extreme power.

RAT reanactors tested a Lorica Segmentata on a Roman crossbow(Manuballista) and the bolt pierced the front plate but the overlap stopped the bolt. However the armor completely dented apart, which would cause massive blunt trauma.

The Chinese are not a nomadic people but they invested in a lot of horses. Chinese cavalry were mainly shock cavalry supported by crossbowfire, rather than light cavalry like the Parthians and their Xiongnu neighbors. Horses are a luxury item in the Roman eyes and Equestrians that could afford it avoided military service by Marius' time, and would rather join as officers. Roman cavalry(Ala) mainly came from Celtic nations. However their numbers were still quite small.(80,000 by Trajan's time, 100,000 by Constantine's time) Julius Caesar mentions how Celtic nobles would often try not to damage their expensive horses.

[Cuong Vu]

All is true, except that Chinese Han was not a nomadic kingdom. It had a lot of big cities, which required infantry to protect. Han cavalry could evade battle, but Roman legions would just take down city after city systematically, slowly strangle enemy supply network and force them either to accept battle or face disintegration from within (i.e. treason, desertion, etc.) That was the tactic used by Marius in the Jugurthine war against his evasive Numidian opponents, and it worked pretty well.

Before you even reached their proper territory, you must cross the steppe. And in fact, the distance between Rome and Han nullified any infantry engagement. The Western Han won the day by recruiting the Xiongnu cavalry.

You seems to think that the Han Chinese infantrymen were useless, but this is . The Warring States period was a period where massed infantry warfare dominated the battlefield. The Chinese had their own battle orders. Opening a battle usually means rains after rains of crossbows and bows, then came the infantrymen that engaged in close quarters. The Chinese troops weren't only bearing the halberds either, there were also swordsmen with large shield as well, as evidenced in the Qin Shihuang terracota.

Apart from the fighting the Nomads, the Eastern Han also had to engaged in constant warfare with the Qiang, another infantry-based army.

[Cuong Vu]

CarpathianWolf, your assessment is fair and I agree with much of what you wrote untilthis:

Yeahthe Han cavalry would number more but I would say, so what? As for Han armyfielding 100,000 professional troops, this simply isn't true. They had a smallcore standing cavalry army (External/Northern army) which was augmented bylimited term servicemen that would serve a couple of years. This is a far cryfrom the Mariam military system of professional standing troops.

Who told you the Han army couldn't field 100,000 professional troops? During the Mobei campaign against the Xiongnu, those 100,000 cavalrymen were professional full-time soldiers. They had been long trained to be prepared for wars specifically against the Xiongnu. Indeed the Western Han native Han cavalrymen were all PROFESSIONAL. The infantry units that participated in that campaign were composed of those who were drawn from the frontier provinces, which means they had prior military experience.

Your description of the so-called Han military organization seems to be picked off from de Crespigny's description of late Eastern Han army. The Western Han army was organized differently. Universal military obligation means they could mobilize a very large force. This is a vestige of late Warring States period.

The"professional Han field army" was a small core of imperial guards andofficer. The rest were glorified militia.

What's wrong with those "glorified militia"? The Qin's army was all conscripted, what's wrong with them? How many times those "professional army" in history could prove nothing but flies on the battlefield? The early Eastern Han army was fully professional since the universal military conscription was abandoned after Han Guangwu re-enervated the dynasty. The Eastern Han army also composed of more heavily armored cavalrymen.

Your understanding of the Xiongnu empire was pretty poor as well. They were not just a disparaged tribal confederation, but a mighty and wealthy military power that must be reckoned. They were in control of Tarim Basin city states, and at their height possessed a disciplined army of 200,000 mounted warriors. To destroy utterly such a mighty power was almost impossible, yet the Han came close to subdue that empire, and managed to divide them into half. This is a feast that means very much. You also seem to picture that they were just a bunch of light horse archers rider, but this could be said to be a false impression in the similar fashion previous historians pictured the Mongols. Xiongnu's armors have been excavated around the Tianshan mountain's area during the 1970s, and the Chinese 考古 Archaeology's magazine published at least 3 archaeological reports on them.