Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86

Thread: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

  1. #61
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    In response to your last sentence; Kublai Khan the world.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #62

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton View Post
    That might be 800,000 in the same sense that Rome could employ 700,000 men.
    No it could not. Imperial Rome had a maximum of about 500,000 at paper strength and a lot of it overexaggerated. So about 380,000 at least.

    Polybius during the Punic War said Italy had the power to support such a large army but it could just be Polyibius propaganda. Rome had only 25 legions max during the 2nd Punic War in 212 BC and not all full strength.

  3. #63
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    No it could not. Imperial Rome had a maximum of about 500,000 at paper strength and a lot of it overexaggerated. So about 380,000 at least.

    Polybius during the Punic War said Italy had the power to support such a large army but it could just be Polyibius propaganda. Rome had only 25 legions max during the 2nd Punic War in 212 BC and not all full strength.
    That's a huge amount of legions considering Rome didn't have a gigantic empire yet, only mainland Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and coastal areas of what are now Spain and France.

    I think Col. Tarleton was not talking about the actual number of legions they had, but the possible number they could have recruited from the overall population if desired (within reasonable financial bounds of equipping and paying salaries and pensions to that many troops, which would have crippled the state's finances and emptied the coffers).

  4. #64
    Edelfred's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Baltic sea
    Posts
    484

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    The last few lines of your post are so garbled they are almost incomprehensible.

    You should define the criteria for a "greatest Western Empire", because in terms of the amount of conquered territory, population, urbanization, and sophisticated technological advancement, the Roman Empire in its heyday surpassed and dwarfed the size and achievements of Charlemagne's empire (and that of his immediate Carolingian successors). Even Alexander's Empire, while very large and extending into Pakistan, did not equal the size of the Roman Empire at its height, and was certainly far more fickle since it collapsed upon Alexander's death. The eastern Hellenistic successor states, the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires, were far outmatched by the Roman Empire at its height as well.

    For that matter, I'm rather shocked you didn't mention the global Spanish Empire, at its height controlled by Charles V who was also Holy Roman Emperor over the German territories and, before their insurgency and war for independence, the Dutch Lowlands. His colonial empire was about the first Western entity to truly rival the Roman Empire at its zenith and basically surpassed its influence on account of it being spread across the globe.

    Anyways...back on topic: Chinese field armies!
    Who cares about surpassing Rome ? Romae has no import on winning Germanics ! They had established their own ways and Frankish law run live up to XIX century in many European countries ,which even had not seen any Frankish warrior .
    Germanics hated the Southern ways - the olygarchy ways of Rome . Rome has been compared with Dragon- the symbol of unholy one . Ziegfried-Arminius slaughtering the dragon of filthy Roman corruption
    The clan system ,the extended families of Illyrians,Romans, Middle-Easterners before Islam counted lesser then filth .Germanics from Sweden to Holland and Germany were all free men without rulers ,their kings have been only the military leaders in the time of war , not the slave drivers from Rome , Macedon and such .
    That is why the winning Germanics established feudal system for themselves- because in their homeland (middle Sweden stuck to this way almost to 1300 AC) they haven't been slaves of clanmasters or Roman olygarchs ,but free citizens ,who were only expected to help their own citizens in the time of foreign agression / or as it was in the case with Rome the preventive wars against greedy Romans .
    Western Europe this why is an establisment of Germanics, defeating savage Hunns and Romans - who were worser then savage ,slaughtering millions Christians and others for amusement only ,neglecting the value of human life and the rights of humans.
    As a matter of fact Finnic , Baltic and Slavic people have tried to keep to similar ways as Germanics ,but in many cases lacked the number and strengh . Those newer Greeks Ionians Aetolians Dorians,who tried to establish democracy in ancient Greece were the invaders from Northern parts of Europe ,which shows the similar origin and tendencies amongst ancient Europeans.
    Romans ? They came from Turkey they were persistent invading foreigners ,whose ways were strange and unwelcommed .
    They came from Turkey as similar banditry-Dacians .Both had the sigh of Wolf as holy one . In ancient Anatolia that sigh belonged to organised banditry .
    As all bandits they lacked women,obviously relying on forced homosexuality spread amogst criminals ,but had to steal Latin women to make some population . They are the only 'nation' ,who had no mythology or religion ,which prooves for certain them being the banditry from mountains of Anatolia . Ah- bother...they themselves boasted about their trip from Anatolia .

    Latins were simple,naive peasants they defeated early Romans once and forced them to speak Latin . Alas it has not been enough...
    Last edited by Edelfred; April 29, 2014 at 04:11 PM.

  5. #65
    Edelfred's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Baltic sea
    Posts
    484

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    About now called China it has 70 nationalities which Han tries to neglect , in ancient times it had many kingdoms
    here are 18 and it is just a fifth part of modern /Chna
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Kingdoms.png
    and such threads are some kind of Han natioanalists ones ,who wants to make us to forget history etc
    Last edited by Edelfred; April 29, 2014 at 03:56 PM.

  6. #66

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    Who cares about surpassing Rome ? Romae has no import on winning Germanics ! They had established their own ways and Frankish law run live up to XIX century in many European countries ,which even had not seen any Frankish warrior .
    Germanics hated the Southern ways - the olygarchy ways of Rome . Rome has been compared with Dragon- the symbol of unholy one . Ziegfried-Arminius slaughtering the dragon of filthy Roman corruption
    The clan system ,the extended families of Illyrians,Romans, Middle-Easterners before Islam counted lesser then filth .Germanics from Sweden to Holland and Germany were all free men without rulers ,their kings have been only the military leaders in the time of war , not the slave drivers from Rome , Macedon and such .
    That is why the winning Germanics established feudal system for themselves- because in their homeland (middle Sweden stuck to this way almost to 1300 AC) they haven't been slaves of clanmasters or Roman olygarchs ,but free citizens ,who were only expected to help their own citizens in the time of foreign agression / or as it was in the case with Rome the preventive wars against greedy Romans .
    Western Europe this why is an establisment of Germanics, defeating savage Hunns and Romans - who were worser then savage ,slaughtering millions Christians and others for amusement only ,neglecting the value of human life and the rights of humans.
    As a matter of fact Finnic , Baltic and Slavic people have tried to keep to similar ways as Germanics ,but in many cases lacked the number and strengh . Those newer Greeks Ionians Aetolians Dorians,who tried to establish democracy in ancient Greece were the invaders from Northern parts of Europe ,which shows the similar origin and tendencies amongst ancient Europeans.
    Romans ? They came from Turkey they were persistent invading foreigners ,whose ways were strange and unwelcommed .
    They came from Turkey as similar banditry-Dacians .Both had the sigh of Wolf as holy one . In ancient Anatolia that sigh belonged to organised banditry .
    As all bandits they lacked women,obviously relying on forced homosexuality spread amogst criminals ,but had to steal Latin women to make some population . They are the only 'nation' ,who had no mythology or religion ,which prooves for certain them being the banditry from mountains of Anatolia . Ah- bother...they themselves boasted about their trip from Anatolia .

    Latins were simple,naive peasants they defeated early Romans once and forced them to speak Latin . Alas it has not been enough...
    What the hell are you talking about?

  7. #67
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    I didn't want to continue this side debate...but now I just have to; it's too funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    Who cares about surpassing Rome ? Romae has no import on winning Germanics ! They had established their own ways and Frankish law run live up to XIX century in many European countries ,which even had not seen any Frankish warrior .
    Before the Franks adopted the Latin alphabet, their laws were handed down orally, because they didn't even have a system of writing. For that matter, the law codes used by the Franks were heavily influenced by preexisting Roman law codes. Next!

    Germanics hated the Southern ways - the olygarchy ways of Rome . Rome has been compared with Dragon- the symbol of unholy one . Ziegfried-Arminius slaughtering the dragon of filthy Roman corruption
    What an odd person you are. It's as if you were a soldier in Arminius's army transported here by a time machine and immediately taught pan German nationalism. I mean, seriously, who alive today actually hates the Romans like this? I could understand if you were like, an Ottoman Turk in the 14th century fighting in a war against "Romans" when Eastern Romans still existed. Seriously, though, for the sake of keeping this a serious thread, tone down the fiery rhetoric, you're making me laugh too much to even write this post!

    The clan system ,the extended families of Illyrians,Romans, Middle-Easterners before Islam counted lesser then filth .Germanics from Sweden to Holland and Germany were all free men without rulers ,their kings have been only the military leaders in the time of war , not the slave drivers from Rome , Macedon and such .
    I don't have a source on hand at the moment for it, but the Germanic peoples almost certainly kept slaves. As historian Barry Cunliffe (1999) points out, from Roman writers it is known that the ancient Celts of Britannia, Gaul, and Germania for that matter owned slaves, perhaps not to the extent of the Greeks and Romans, but slavery certainly existed north of Rome. Next!

    And yes, they were free men...in small villages and very rarely in large towns...in a civilization that didn't even have writing and was centuries behind the Greeks and Romans. If the Germanic peoples were just as advanced in the same time period, make no mistake, they would have created states like seen in the Middle Ages with kings and royal houses, etc.

    That is why the winning Germanics established feudal system for themselves- because in their homeland (middle Sweden stuck to this way almost to 1300 AC) they haven't been slaves of clanmasters or Roman olygarchs ,but free citizens ,who were only expected to help their own citizens in the time of foreign agression / or as it was in the case with Rome the preventive wars against greedy Romans .
    And when Germanic tribes raided Roman borders and Roman towns for gold and riches, that was not greedy as well? I think you're painting everything way too black and white here...I don't think the Germanic peoples were any worse or better than the Romans. If anything they were just as vile and bloodthirsty.

    Western Europe this why is an establisment of Germanics, defeating savage Hunns and Romans - who were worser then savage ,slaughtering millions Christians and others for amusement only ,neglecting the value of human life and the rights of humans.
    LOL! Millions of Christians, eh? Got a source for that? Even in the worst anti-Christian persecutions under Diocletian, there was no where near that many Christians killed. We're talking about 3,000 people tops. Even funnier about your argument is the complete omission of the fact Constantine became a Christian emperor and a majority of Romans became Christians by the end of the 4th century AD.

    Also, your grouping of Romans and Huns - mortal enemies - into the same category is hilarious.

    As a matter of fact Finnic , Baltic and Slavic people have tried to keep to similar ways as Germanics ,but in many cases lacked the number and strengh . Those newer Greeks Ionians Aetolians Dorians,who tried to establish democracy in ancient Greece were the invaders from Northern parts of Europe ,which shows the similar origin and tendencies amongst ancient Europeans.
    Everyone is well aware that the Greeks were and are Caucasian (of their own Mediterranean stock, at least), yet the last time I recall someone trying to make a connection between the Nordic peoples and Greeks was German scholars during the Nazi era. Just saying.

    I'm not even sure what you mean by 'similar tendencies', but then again, just about everything you say is fairly insane with no basis in reality.

    Romans ? They came from Turkey they were persistent invading foreigners ,whose ways were strange and unwelcommed .
    They came from Turkey as similar banditry-Dacians .Both had the sigh of Wolf as holy one . In ancient Anatolia that sigh belonged to organised banditry .
    As all bandits they lacked women,obviously relying on forced homosexuality spread amogst criminals ,but had to steal Latin women to make some population . They are the only 'nation' ,who had no mythology or religion ,which prooves for certain them being the banditry from mountains of Anatolia . Ah- bother...they themselves boasted about their trip from Anatolia .
    Romans...from Anatolia... You know, for someone who says he thinks the Romans are filthy, greedy, evil invaders, you show a great propensity for falling to Roman propaganda. Honestly, I hope you're not actually buying in to the whole "Romans were descended from the Trojan Prince Aeneas" that Virgil touted in his famous epic poem.

    You know, I think most Indo-European people who migrated into Central and Western Europe by the late 3rd and 2nd millenniums BC did so through natural gateways and land bridges like the Anatolian Peninsula. It wasn't just the Latin ancestors to the Romans.

    Even funnier than you buying into an Anatolian origin story for the Romans is your mentioning of the Rape of the Sabine Women. Seriously? You think that's actual history? Are you like...a school kid or something? Is that who I'm arguing with at the moment? It's complete mythology, legendary history. Any "event" that occurred in the middle of the 8th century BC that the Romans wrote about like five to six centuries later is most likely completely false, made up altogether. Gosh, you don't even need to be a professor in Classical history to understand that.

    Something tells me you also think Romulus and Remus were real historical people, too.

    I'll let you in on a little secret: they and their story about surviving off a wolf's teats are about as historical as Santa Claus.

    And to make your rambling even more absurd, you claim the Romans had no religion. I'm speechless. Aside from borrowing characteristics of the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses, the Romans already had their own existing pantheon of gods and goddesses, even ones that had no origin in Greece. Their borrowing of Greek ideas and facelifting them onto the Roman deities does not hide the fact that the Roman gods and goddesses were fairly unique and had attributes their Greek counterparts simply did not. I could give countless examples, but this thread is already going way too off topic from all this.

    Latins were simple,naive peasants they defeated early Romans once and forced them to speak Latin . Alas it has not been enough...
    For the love of Jupiter, the Romans were a Latin tribe! Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, then your bizarre speculation isn't warranted. Honestly, you just pulled this idea out of thin air with zero evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    About now called China it has 70 nationalities which Han tries to neglect , in ancient times it had many kingdoms
    here are 18 and it is just a fifth part of modern /Chna
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Kingdoms.png
    and such threads are some kind of Han natioanalists ones ,who wants to make us to forget history etc
    Alright, now I'm almost 100% positive you're drunk or something. They do make good vodka up there in the Baltic states.

    Instead of showing something sensible and intellectual to prove your point, like the actual non-Han states of Minyue, Nanyue, Baiyue, Nanzhao, and Dali of southern China that existed throughout various centuries, you show a map of China proper with the Warring States (!!!) which were eventually consolidated by Qin and then Han.

    Even during the Warring States, and before that during Western Zhou and Shang, the proto-Han Chinese people at large called themselves "Zhonguoren," or "People of the Central Kingdom." During the four centuries of the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD), the various Kingdoms of "Zhongguo," or the "Central Kingdom" lost their separate ethnic identities in favor of a single Han ethnicity, the Han people. This is a well known historical fact that no historian in China today neglects...except in the minds of people who've been drinking too much vodka.

  8. #68
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton View Post
    ...
    It would be foolish to smoke anything not from Virginia. You could get cancer from that. ....
    Virginia? Oh you mean Cuba.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    Who cares about surpassing Rome ?...
    Ah check the OP, thats the point of the thread. Also its not about imagined "Germanics", that rat-like group that scurried over the borders of the great Roman Imperium after it had been brought low by internal dissension, courageous Iranians and bold Steppe warriors.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #69
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,064

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?
    Hmm? why does China have so many people?
    Seriously now,
    During the Warring States years, the overall population of China grew rapidly, spurred by great strides in agricultural technology – the raw material for massive armies was there...
    Full paper,
    the warring states period (453-221) - Indiana University
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  10. #70

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Wang Yumin:WYM
    Ge Jianxiong:GJX
    Yuan Zuliang:YZL

    Shiji has lower estimates for troops numbers
    Chu + Qin has 1,000,000 soldiers
    Wei has 700,000 soldiers
    Zhao + Qi has 800,000 soldiers
    Han+Yan has 500,000 soldiers

    Qin population
    WYM estimates at least 20 million
    GJX estimates at least 40 million
    YZL estimates 20 million

    Chu Han contention
    YZL estimates 13 million

    Beginning of Western Han
    GJX estimates 15-18 million
    YZL estimates 12-14 million

    Wendi/Jindi's reign
    YZL estimates 35 million

    Wudi's reign
    YZL estimates around 30 million
    GJX estimates 32 million

    Zhaodi's reign
    YZL estimates 10% increase

    Xuandi's reign
    YZL estimates at least 50 million

    Pingdi's reign
    YZL estimates at least 59 million

    Minorities during Western Han
    Xiongnu: YZL estimates before Western Han at least 300,000 soldiers while the population decreased due to Li Mu of Zhao and Han Wudi
    Xiongnu: GJX estimates 500,000-600,000
    Xianbei,Fuyu,Suzhen,Koreans,Wusun etc: YZL estimates 500,000
    Xianbei,Fuyu,Suzhen,Koreans,Wusun etc: GJX estimates 300,000
    Western regions ie modern day Xinjiang: YZL estimates 500,000
    Tibet,Qinghai,Sichuan,Yunnan: YZL estimates an unknown
    Qiang,Di: GJX estimates couple one hundred thousands.
    South: YZL estimates couple million

    Total of Western Han
    YZL estimates 65 million
    GJX estimates 63 million

    Xin dynasty
    YZL estimates lost of couple one hundred thousands.

    The myth that Han population was halved during Wudi's regin is busted by GJX and YZL.
    Last edited by Wu Guo; April 29, 2014 at 05:05 PM.

  11. #71
    Edelfred's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Baltic sea
    Posts
    484

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I didn't want to continue this side debate...but now I just have to; it's too funny.



    Before the Franks adopted the Latin alphabet, their laws were handed down orally, because they didn't even have a system of writing. For that matter, the law codes used by the Franks were heavily influenced by preexisting Roman law codes. Next!





    The classical Latin alphabet or Roman alphabet is a writing system which evolved from a western variety of theGreek alphabet called the Cumaean alphabet, itself a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet, itself a descendant of the Egyptian hieroglyphs which was adopted and modified by the Etruscans who ruled early Rome. The Etruscan alphabet was in turn adopted and further modified by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language.




  12. #72
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Virginia? Oh you mean Cuba.

    Ah check the OP, thats the point of the thread.
    Went right over his head.

    Also its not about imagined "Germanics", that rat-like group that scurried over the borders of the great Roman Imperium after it had been brought low by internal dissension, courageous Iranians and bold Steppe warriors.
    Stop it! Cyclops! Stop it! You're an enabler! You're only going to encourage him further. It's too much already, to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    The classical Latin alphabet or Roman alphabet is a writing system which evolved from a western variety of theGreek alphabet called the Cumaean alphabet, itself a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet, itself a descendant of the Egyptian hieroglyphs which was adopted and modified by the Etruscans who ruled early Rome. The Etruscan alphabet was in turn adopted and further modified by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language.

    Yes, the Romans adopted their writing system from the Greeks, who in turn took it from the Phoenicians, etc., etc. For that matter, the Romans were heavily indebted to the Greeks for the adoption of many new technologies, philosophies, and even the very idea of the polis, a sophisticated urban settlement a step above the hamlets, villages, and small towns of Celtic and Germanic Europe. The Romans were indebted to the Greeks in much the same way the Germanic peoples were indebted to the Romans for providing a model of governmental administration, education, literature, production of goods, etc.

    Roman laws and their legal codes more or less evolved on their own trajectory aside from that of the Greek city states. The Franks under their King Clovis (466-511 AD) created the Salic Law from Frankish oral tradition written into Latin, but as I've already stated, relied heavily on preexisting Roman legal codes.

    Anyways, I'm officially done discussing this topic. It is derailing the thread and, if you would like to discuss Frankish law, I would be happy to do so in another thread. It is, after all, a fascinating historical subject worthy of investigation and debate. However, it has no place in a thread about the sizes of Han Dynasty Chinese armies.

  13. #73

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    The classical Latin alphabet or Roman alphabet is a writing system which evolved from a western variety of theGreek alphabet called the Cumaean alphabet, itself a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet, itself a descendant of the Egyptian hieroglyphs which was adopted and modified by the Etruscans who ruled early Rome. The Etruscan alphabet was in turn adopted and further modified by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language.


    Which does not in any way refute the point he was making.

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  14. #74
    Ybbon's Avatar The Way of the Buffalo
    Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    locally
    Posts
    7,234

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edelfred View Post
    The classical Latin alphabet or Roman alphabet is a writing system which evolved from a western variety of theGreek alphabet called the Cumaean alphabet, itself a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet, itself a descendant of the Egyptian hieroglyphs which was adopted and modified by the Etruscans who ruled early Rome. The Etruscan alphabet was in turn adopted and further modified by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language.



    Stay on topic please, if you want to debate alphabets I'm sure you will find many willing respondents, but you should open a new thread for that please, where or how the Latin alphabet is derived is not relevant to the size of ancient Chinese armies.

  15. #75
    RollingWave's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    5,083

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Awesome! Thank you for sharing this. I would rep you for this, but I am unable to do so at the moment with my raised warning level.

    It is hard to gauge the number of soldiers off this data, though, considering the incredibly high number for available crossbows and sword staffs, but much lower numbers for shields and helmets. Iron lamellar we are probably all familiar with, but what are "jia" and "kai" armors? Iron scale mail? Is one of them lacquered leather?
    The modern Chinese term for armor is "Kai Jia" so both Kai and Jia refer to armor, however it is very difficult to tell what they mean individually, I'm going to take a educated guess that Kai = heavy armor , Jia = medium armor and the 铁甲札 (which HackneyedScribe translated as Iron Lamellar) almost certainly refer to the most basic Han iron armor where long iron plates band together and only cover the torso. Because the Hanji Kai used in Japan in the later era refer to the the full Samurai suit.

    Tie Zha Jia (Iron Lamellar in translation) probably looked like



    maybe without the shoulder guards. Jia I'll guess is a more sophisticated version of this. like




    and Kai would be more like.




    I'm fairly sure Kai means "full suit" which already include helmets, while Jia and Zha Jia could be worn with or without armor.
    Last edited by RollingWave; April 29, 2014 at 08:22 PM.
    1180, an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in East Asia, it's technology and wealth is the envy of the world. But soon conflict will engulf the entire region with great consequences and lasting effects for centuries to come, not just for this region, but the entire known world, when one man, one people, unites.....

  16. #76
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    @RollingWave: Excellent post yet again! Thanks for clearing that up and sharing pictures to demonstrate the differences.

    Quick question: were Han soldier's shields made out of lacquered wood?

  17. #77
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    I think the bottom one is what the heavy cavalry toward the end of the Han wore. I recall references to armoured cavalry.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  18. #78
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    while Jia and Zha Jia could be worn with or without armor.
    Jia technically means upper body armor and may include groin armor too (a lot of time both were manufacturing as one piece or at least attach), but not helmet, arm armor and leg armor. Chinese records during Warring States also mentioned heavy and light crossbow, with good amount of military manual in same period describing the purpose of both types of crossbow and how to operate both type of units with other type of units.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; April 29, 2014 at 09:07 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  19. #79

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    I think we should not forget the geographical and political structure of the realms when talking about army sizes.

    First Rome:

    One major point for the success of Rome lies in the fact that Italy is by far the most fertile land in the western Mediterranean and it had the largest population in Europe if you would have split it up in Greece, Spain, Gaul, Germania Magna and Africa. The Manpool alone was the largest and the roman society allowed it to field a higher percentage of their population, compared to societies with a warrior-elite or citizen-soldiers. Than the most advantageous point in terms of geography are the waterways. They are essential in ruling an empire and it is no surprise that the Roman Empire surrounded the Mediterranean and had is borders on Rhine, Danube and Euphrates. Beyond rivers and the sea the logistic capabilities of a infantry bases land-power were limited as we will see.

    Han-Dynasty:

    First we must understand that Han-China can not be compared with later Dynasties in China in term of size and population. At this time the capital was Chang'an which was located far more west and in the centre of a network of the great Chinese rivers. Although the Han-Army was perfectly capable to suppress any revolt, effectively direct control was only given alongside the valleys of this river network and in the border-provinces and commandaries were plenty of troops were stationed. The mandarin or a similar extensive administration system didn't existed back than and the information the government received was much smaller in its contend. Although the population of Han-China was in the interpretations i prefer almost the same as the Roman Empire's it would be a mistake to think of Han-China within the categories we do today. The population explosion in China started much later. The numbers for Han and Chinese Armies are totally exaggerated, not only for the Cao Cao occasion, also if you look later in to the Tang Dynasty. Though it was probably the greatest Chinese Dynasties, i doubt it could have fielded over a million soldiers against one of the Korean Realms as they claimed.

    Persia/Parthia:

    Since i am more familiar with Parthian studies, my knowledge over Persia is limited to the point were i make comparisons with the Parthian Empire. It does not make much sense to compare Persia with Rome and Han-China, because it is a completely different time frame, while the Parthians fit in. As done for Rome and Han-China, a few words to the geography have to be said. It is true that Persia was a gigantic realm, but it needs to be mentioned that it has little navigable rivers and seas which were so important for ancient logistics. A central authority like in the Roman Empire or China was much harder to establish, since there was no core area from which you could reach every part of the realm very easily. That is one reason why the realms were so decentralized and royal residential capital existed at different places. Though from our western sources the focus is clearly on Mesopotamia, which is not really the truth, since it implies that these realms had real capitals like Rome or Chang'an. Persia itself had a professional warrior class which consisted of nobles which made it unusual for them to field large armies. The Greatking for once had control about a professional core of his 10k "Lifeguards" + probably the same number of trainees that could replace fallen soldiers to keep the number up. Everything else were local troops to control a province and under Satrap and Client King authority + Mercs like Greek Hoplites and Nomads. It is quite similar for the Parthians, but their armies were even smaller since they took the nobility warrior class to further extend and regular weren't able to field more than 50k man under one of their greatest kings against the Alans 70k including auxiliaries.

    By the way the Mongolian Army wasn't so huge as well. All in all they had 200k warriors and their height. It did looked so huge because they had incredible logistic and tactical capabilities for a land-power, quite similar to the Prussian Doctrines in the late 19th century. March divided, but fight together. Mongolian Armies were so fast that they could come together and create the opinion that they were endless hordes which they were in fact not.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  20. #80
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: What gave the Chinese the ability to field so much men compared to Romans and Persians?

    Qin was entirely militarized, like a giant barracks. It's non-comparative.

    While Han did have a huge reserve, it doesn't really mean anything at all since they're no different to the numbers of registered conscripts. You can only count the numbers of soldiers they could mobilize during offensive operations - which is like 100,000 against Xiongnu, and that required many decades of peace and saving and still got the country into bankruptcy after an overwhelming victory. But it's also far more costly than Romans marching into Parthia or later dynasties into neighboring Korea, because the entire force has to be mounted and no local supply was possible over the course.


    The cavalry is also non-comparative. Han faced exclusively homeless horse archers, and they have no way to force Xiongnu to fight or even defeat Xiongnu - if you can call that defeating, since the Xiongnu merely ran away like Parthian nobles did, except the latter have cities and castles they're supposed to guard. You wouldn't need that kind of army in most other places because it'd be a huge waste of resource and it's not an all-round effective kind, unless they're like Muslim professional armies during caliphate or Mamluks, which would have been far more expensive to keep.




    BTW Chinese population wasn't that high until very later, probably Song dynasty?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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