RomanArmyTalk

Quote:Where do these figures come from? What do you mean by "cut through wrought iron"?

I have already posted it in my previous post, read back.

Quote:Please, do we have any verifiable examples of swords cutting through metal armor? It is being discussed here as if it were scientific fact.

Obiously the fact that I posted hints at the point that they can't go through metal armor.

Quote:Slashing or cutting usually involves some draw-cutting or back and forth sawing motion, while chopping does not necessitate this motion

If that is what slashing or cutting means, then yes, the dao does not slash or cut, considering that it only has one blade.

Quote:
The loss of a man in a nomad society weighs much more, because he is not only a warrior, but also a family father, who gives protection to his wife(s) and numerous children. Thus, human losses can be socially less tolerated than in sedentary societies, especially those which follow the concept of a standing army, where the negative repercussions to the rest of the society are at a minimum.

Yes, it does weigh much more. But then again, horse nomads tend to lose less people in the first place. As I stated, the XiongNu(although still sexist) culture allows a widow to still be successful if her husband dies. Sendentary societies do not. What is more important is that sedentary societies have what we call the "supply line", making it increasingly hard for them to strike at a nomadic horse army. Whereas a nomadic horse army does not have this problem and can thus even outnumber sedentary armies through increased manueverability/choosing the battle sights.

Quote:It is not if a nomad is living from the air. In case of defeat, he can get away with his horse, but his cattle will be left behind, since cattle is not moving much faster than even a walking man. But without cattle, his basis of life, he is practically dead.

And if the nomads keep the cattle far behind the front, it is always in danger of being seized by another group. In any case, the proportion of covering troops for his cattle, wife and children must be much greater than in sedentary societies, because of the complete lack of fortifications.

No, a nomadic societies manueverability do not lie in the idea that their movable village can "flee" on sight of the sedentary army. It's strength is the fact that its constant movement means that a sedentary army would not know where to attack in the first place. In retrospect any nomadic society has the advantage that they plan the invasion of a city a decade beforehand and fully expect that the city will still be there a decade after.

Quote:I would rather say it is the other way round. In a sedentary, agricultural society there is better care for the wife and children and of killed, because other relatives are usually living in the same village to take care of them. In nomad society, where tens of thousand people move from pasture to pasture over large stretches of land, the risk of losing touch, locally and emotionally, to relatives is far greater.

Actually, it is the custom of the XiongNu to marry the wife with her son if the husband dies(yes, it is pretty messed up in our present culture). Even if she is a widow, she is still allowed to do typical "manwork" without being looked down upon. This is something rarely seen in sedentary societies in which widows can't find a decent job.

Quote:I think you may be under te mistaken premise that the steppe is a void place which enough space to go anywhere any time. Kind of moon, only with air to breath. In fact, nomad movement are subject to a strict rhythm and that with a good reason. Nomads move from summer to winter pasture, from spring to spring with their cattle, so if a group gets defeated at the fringe of the steppe by a sedentary society, they just CAN'T retreat to any place on the steppe to their liking, but have to respect the movements of all other tribes, being in circular motion. If not, then another round of fighting breaks out immediately.

I did not say they can go ANYWHERE, but they can choose the different pastures available, and sedentary armies can only depend on luck in order to find a nomadic village to pillage.

Quote:In a word, nomad societies are not at all as mobile as you may think. The Han were very well confronting an enemy who had his own strategical and tactical worries and limitations. The nomad bonus to Han China is less than you might think, more so, since it was the only real enemy, and the Han had therefore the luxury of concentrating the deployment of their forces, the training, weepons and equipment of their troops, on a single type of enemy. Rome, in contrast, had to build up an army which could cope with all types of enemies

As I said, this idea is double standard. Is Rome fighting against Carthage just Rome fighting against Rome. Is Rome fighting against Egypt the same as Rome fighting against Rome. Just because China kept its lands does not mean that all its battles are mute. Each Chinese dynasty the Han fought were as different from each other as Rome to Egypt. By your judgement there is NO WAY that any war the Han took was against a foreign power since all its lands are within the present Chinese border. Even the nomadic XiongNu are within the present Chinese border(but also Mongolia and Russia). The Han themselves obviously did not think that the XiongNu were their only worthy enemy, as can be seen by how their history looked with respect at the Warring States period as well as XiangYu of Chu.

Quote:The warring states are a zero-sum-consideration, and therefore not really relevant for any assessment of Han military might. What the one Chinese state wins in military glory and skill, the other necessarily loses.

Again, by that same judgement you might as well say that Rome never fought against a foreign power either(except in certain cases such as Germany or Parthia) due to that everybody it fought is a part of the Roman empire, is it not? The Han dynasty fought "higher civilizations" from the Chosun and the NanYue to more than fifty states in Central Asia, each with their own massive cities and technologies as demanded by climate.

Quote:If the Greek city-states had been forever battling among themselves, no historian would have realised the full military potential of the Greek hoplite armies. Yes, one could have made general inferences from the general level of warfare, but the real evidence for the military potential of the Greek city-states only came when they did beat the Persian superpower repeatedly and, overall, convincingly.

On the contrary if Greek Macedonia kept its lands more people would consider Persia vs Greece the same as Greece vs Greece, would they not?

Quote:Such 'proof'', however, lacks in the case of Han China almost completely. The first high civilisations with which the Chinese had to deal with, were the Arabians in 751 and that resulted promptly in a defeat.

What an unfair comparison. Not only was Rome long gone by then(so the battle is mute in this case), but the Chinese were outnumbered 4 to 1, maybe even eight to one, since most of their allies turned sides.
Not only that but it also ignores the fact that Tang also had their own victories over the Arabs as well. You win when you're powerful and you lose when you're not. Power in countries change over time, so just because you lost to one country doesn't make you militarily weaker than that country. Anyway, here's the example of Tang victories before/after Talas over the same opponent, as well as Talas itself.

The first encounter was in 715· When Arabs under Qutaiba invades Ferghana, he install a new king called Alutâr Qutaiba also raided Kashgar and Arab sources claim that he ravaged the surrounding until the "King of China"(perhaps the governor of that region) agreed to pay him ransom for his withdrawal. The old King of Ferghana escaped to Tang and the next year the Tang sent 10,000 troops under Chang Hiao sung from Kucha to Ferghana. He then defeated the Arab puppet Alutâr who escaped to the countrysides. Tang source claim that the Arab and Tubo occupation there was ended by the Tang forces, but the Arab and Tubo force there at this time was probably not large, since there happen just to be a purge in the islamic world in which Quitaiba revolts and was killed by his troops just before the Tang forces entered Ferghana.
The second skirmish is in 717, the caliph Suleiman tried to sent embassies to the central asian kingdoms to convert to Islam. He sent a general with an army and joined the Türgis and Tubo armies to besiege the city of Aksu and other parts of Tang western protectorates. The Tang ordered the vassal Western Turkic qaghan Arsïla Hsien, to attack the enemy. The alliance was routed and the Muslims escaped back to Tashkent. The Muslim army again is probably not that large, a few thousand at most. While the Tang force is composed mainly of Turkic troops.
Then comes Talas, this sticks out so much because the Arab force was actually large this time, although no sources record the size. Some modern historians think it was around 70,000.
The last mention of encounter was in 801, when Tang and Nan Zhao troops defeated the Tubo and reported to capture Arab troops in them. We do not know whether this is an alliance or the Arabs are simply captured by the Tubo in war and used as Auxiliars.

Again, I am not saying that Han > Rome, nor am I saying that Rome > Han. I just want some respect for the abilities of the opposing army. Just because the Roman army "rocks" does not equate with the idea that the Han army is composed of untrained peasants that can only win be sheer force of numbers.

Quote:All throughout history the same thing is evident. If armour didn't protect adequately against the most common threats then it was either reinforced till it did, or it was discarded completely.

It was actually an arms race. Weapons improved, than armor improved, then weapons improved, then armor improved. Weapons were never completely effective against armor, nor were armor completely effective against weapons. But sometimes the spectrum tends to lean more on one side than the other.

Quote:It was actually an arms race. Weapons improved, than armor improved, then weapons improved, then armor improved. Weapons were never completely effective against armor, nor were armor completely effective against weapons. But sometimes the spectrum tends to lean more on one side than the other.

This so-called "arms race" has been greatly exaggerated. Of course it was a factor but IMO not the decisive one. This thread about the development of plate covers some factors relevant to Europe. Economic and social factors are the main driving forces for change.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... adid=41041

Quote:I have already posted it in my previous post, read back.

Where? I haven't seen you cite a single source yet.

Quote:This so-called "arms race" has been greatly exaggerated. Of course it was a factor but IMO not the decisive one. This thread about the development of plate covers some factors relevant to Europe. Economic and social factors are the main driving forces for change.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... adid=41041

Yes, I agree that economics is one of the leading factors, but economics also ties into the arms race. For example, the TongXiuJia of the Han period was recorded to be able to stop a 25 stone crossbow dead in its tracts, but the armor was so expensive that only the commanders and maybe the elite wore it. Part of the arms race consists of the question of "how can I make a weapon that is not only effective against present armor but also cheap" or vice versa. It's not worth it to create a ranged weapon that can penetrate armor but each bolt costs more than the armor itself. Same vice versa. Economics ties into the arms race very well. Armies throughout time were perfectly capable of making weapons that is effective against all types of armor, and they are also capable of making armours effective against most types of weapons(i say "most" just in case some smartypants start talking about weapons such as the catapult!). The cost(not just in money), however, is impossible for it to be mass produced, and thus not worth it.

Quote:Where? I haven't seen you cite a single source yet.

As I said in previous posts(thurs, May 25), Gabriel's army of antiquity, on table 1.1 if I remember correctly. His point was that armor was efficient against most weapons of the day. Although sometimes I do believe that he is making some of the stuff up, since he never mentioned how the test was conducted, nor what type of gladius, how thick was the bronze/iron, etc...But that's just my guess.

" I just want some respect for the abilities of the opposing army. Just because the Roman army "rocks" does not equate with the idea that the Han army is composed of untrained peasants that can only win be sheer force of numbers."

No-one said the Han army stunk...but rather people here simply shared evidence contrary to the original poster's essay. We're saying that the Han army is going to have a really tough time with the Romans. You simply kept on defending the side of the Han, in which case you got ganged up on...though not surprising considering this forum is of course called Roman Army Talk.

Quote:No-one said the Han army stunk...but rather people here simply shared evidence contrary to the original poster's essay. We're saying that the Han army is going to have a really tough time with the Romans. You simply kept on defending the side of the Han, in which case you got ganged up on...though not surprising considering this forum is of course called Roman Army Talk.

There are plenty of things that I disagreed with as to the "facts" of the original poster, but it makes it no more right to counter his essay with facts that are just as false(ideas such as no stirrups on crossbows, no worthy enemies, fighting for the next bag of rice?). Obviously I don't need to defend the Roman empire in this forum because there are plenty of people here to do it for me(being that it IS a Roman military forum), but I do defend the Roman army in CHF about the same essay(being that it IS a Chinese history forum, but still there are others in there who defended Rome too). It is incredibly easy for me to paint such a picture with facts(that are true to boot) in order to make it seem that the Han are mightier than Rome, as long as I give one side of the picture. It is just as easy for me to paint a picture in which Rome seems mightier than the Han, and with true facts as well. All I have to do is choose which facts to post. It is altogether even easier if I throw out flase facts as according to stereotype, but should I do that? No.

I really want to compare how the two armies evolved from each other. Similarities include that they both switched from typical short gladius/jian to longer spatha/dao, both probably due to the increased importance of cavalry. What they differed at is that the Roman empire sticked mainly with lorica segmentata and mail while the Han sticked with mainly Lamellar armour. This may be due because of differences in cost or simply the weapons that was preferred. Another difference is that the Han concentrated much more on firepower than the Romans, while the Romans concentrated much more on melee than the Han. This can be seen by the style of warships that both employed. Roman ones rammed/boarded a lot more than Han warships, so even with warships Rome relied on its melee power. As for the Han, their ships relied on firepower, sinking other ships at a distance. As a result, Roman ships tend to be faster than Han ships(slower ships can't ram faster ships), while Han ships tend to be bigger/taller(to add more siege engies/archers).

The emphasis on missile weapons vs. melee weapons quite likely had a lot to do with potential enemies. While both empires confronted enemies with lots of horse archers, in the case of China those archers have always been a very serious threat, able to readily attack into the core of the empire. In the case of Rome, the Parthians lacked the means to hold Syria, let alone truly threaten the empire. Rome also had a number of serious enemies to the north, who fought in a very different fashion. Barbarians from the north, had, of course, sacked Rome in the past, and were seen as a major threat.

The naval differences are in part related, I suspect, to the fact that the Roman navy worked in the Mediterranean sea, whereas most Chinese naval warfare has been riverine.

Quote:The naval differences are in part related, I suspect, to the fact that the Roman navy worked in the Mediterranean sea, whereas most Chinese naval warfare has been riverine.

Due to that Chinese naval warfare at this time was based on large lakes or rivers, their ships also tend to be flat-bottomed, which makes it easier for the ships to get close to land/not get sunk by a hidden reef or other whatnot. However, flat-bottomed ships wouldn't be preffered in the ocean where a stormy weather may nock the ship up-side down, although there are exceptions in which the Han navy is designed as oceangoing such as Wudi's fleet conquering Korea.

I would agree with you that the dominance of missiles in Han warfare is due to the nomads, but we must remember that even during the Spring and Autumn period missiles were already becoming increasingly more important. I would have to say that missiles were of more importance to the Han because their arms race between missles/armor happened in such a way that the spectrum leaned more to the side of better missiles rather than better armor. For Rome this is the exact opposite, in which their spectrum leaned to the side of better armor rather than better missiles. But then again perhaps you are right. A huge part of the territories belonging to the Han and the territories of the Spring&Autumn beforehand are relatively flat, thus more open to nomadic incursions than Rome, who can at least support their territories through the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, it is also easier to project great power into other territories through these plains areas at times of strength as well. Thus, since whoever has more power over the northern edges can gain an upper hand over their opponents, it would be natural that the military would focus on the preferred types of weapons on these terrain, which is missiles. Rome on the other hand has terrain in which the plains areas are made much less important. They even gave back much of the land that they conquered from Parthia, which would be a foolish mistake for the Han government considering their empire's terrain patterns(control of the entire northern plains means the very northwest of the Empire can have incredibly fast contact/supplies/support fromm the very northeast of the empire and vice versa), but this move is not stupid for the Roman government for they did not have a "northern plain" that can decide which dynasty wields the power of the Mediterranean region. The situation decides much as one can see.

Hmmm…This kind of discussion all too often seems to end up as some kind of exercise in “ethnic fanboyismâ€

Quote:Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today, mostly because a more democratic government is limited.

Do you mean oppressive totalitarian countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, Monaco, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden? D D

(sorry, i couldn't help myself.)

Perhaps you would like to quote my entire sentence next time, instead of cutting it off in such a way as if to say that I'm anti-democratic. Here is the real quote from me.

"Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today, mostly because a more democratic government is limited by technology in which only the chosen few can vote, so there's not much difference."

Now, please explain to me how you can accurately count the votes of 60 million people without the help of modern technology. Obviously votes have to be limited to the few(as in the case of Rome), or you could go with a theocracy(as in the case of the Han). A modern democracy back then is simply impossible. Even in the case of a single city such as Athens the votes were limited.

Obviously the USA is NOT a democracy, it was founded as a Republic, and current attempts to change the selection system for the USA's highest offices are refused by those who are in power. :twisted:

Sorry, Anthrophobia!

"Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today..."

This is how the quote should have looked like. My fault. My point was not to imply that you were anti-democratic, which i don't believe. It's just that the majority of people actually living in monarchies does not equate monarchy with evil, rather, we take pride not only in being citizens, but also being Loyal Subjects to our Soverreigns.

Were would Spanish democracy have been today without the heroic actions of His Majesty Juan Carlos, for instance?

As a staunch monarchist myself, i fully subscribe to your thesis that a strong monarch is the best alternative where the tecnology and infrastructure for real democracy is wanting.

A tyrrany can be both the best and worst of governments. If you have an intelligent, benevolent ruler then amazing things can be achieved because he doesn't have to worry about political correctness and appeasing a variety of factions to do what he thinks is best. If he is petty, cruel, etc then there is little to curtail his actions and the country suffers greatly.

Quote:A tyranny can be both the best and worst of governments. If you have an intelligent, benevolent ruler then amazing things can be achieved because he doesn't have to worry about political correctness and appeasing a variety of factions to do what he thinks is best. If he is petty, cruel, etc then there is little to curtail his actions and the country suffers greatly.

No arguments there. However tyrants are seldom long lived (Caligula ruled for four years if i remember correctly.) unless backed up by a party organization. (Castro, Kim Jong Il). Oligarchies tend to oppress the people worse and for longer periods. Weak kings and politically powerful nobility tend to be very bad news for Average Joe's.
However i think we digress to much from the subject of the thread.