Quote:Steel, much stronger than iron and unknown in the West until 1845 AD, was first produced from cast iron using a method called decarburization in China by the second century BC (Temple, 49).
Not entirely accurate, if you accept that the gladius hispaniensis, originally produced by the Spanish celts, probably had a high steel content, which is why the Romans adopted it after forcing captured Spanish swordsmiths to teach them how to make it. They may not have called it steel, and the process would not have been anywhere near as refined, but it is 2ndC BC and gave them blades better than most opponents. The reputation of the blade was that you could balance it on the top of your head, pull each end down to your shoulders, and when released it would spring back into shape, time and time again.
Quote:and its soldiers carries weapons that can slice through their opponents easier than their Roman counterparts.
Again, it depends on whether you think it is better to slice or to thrust at very close quarters. That does depend on formations and tactics.
Quote:Therefore, steel, when combined with the decarburization method, should have no problem penetrate the wrought iron plate armor of the Romans.
A shame it can't wait for the next edition of JRMES. It apparently has an article demonstrating that Roman armour was superior to Renaissance armour. However, I don't know if that applies to the Augustan period.
Quote:The Romans tactics would have acted poorly against the firepower and mobility of the Chinese army. On a typical engagement, crossbowmen were employed so that men within the formation are loading while the men in the front are shooting (Liang in Temple, 221). This brings a continual rain of bolts that no Roman legionary can penetrate even with testudo, a Roman unit formation using shield walls on all sides for protection against arrows (Connolly 63), since it would be no use against the penetration power of the bolts.
Just run at them as fast as you can, and see how good the crossbowmen are at hand to hand combat? The Romans had an uncanny ability of adapting to a new threat, which is one of the main reasons they were so successful. No doubt after a couple of battles the Romans would have had their own crossbowmen, and the crossbows would have been better :wink: There is also a lot that is unknown about the construction of the Roman shield, and in fact may well have stood up to the crossbow bolt, especially if rawhide (ancient Kevlar?) was used in conjunction with layered felt, on top of three-ply construction.
Quote:The Chinese also used poison in their bolts and arrows for maximum damage. Even if the projectile doesn’t kill the Romans immediately, a little prick or scrape will finish the job (Temple 223).
The typical result of that would have been no quarter for the Chinese should the Romans manage to ever win. It is however a scary thought as heavy arrow attacks would usually hit a fair amount of exposed Roman flesh if the conditions were right. Casualties would have been high. I suspect it would make the Romans even more determined and daring in their tactics, and no doubt would have forced them to cover more as they eventually did in Dacia. I also suspect they would move to a war of attrition as they did against Hannibal, attacking on their own terms, and quite likely concentrating on cutting off supplies. Starve them out rather than crush them maybe?
Quote:The Roman military not only had only poor technology and useless tactics, they also lacked the size and skill of the Chinese Army. The Augustan Legions is tiny when compared to the Han Army.
This is true, but so was Xerxes' army when it invaded Greece, and we know what happened there.
Quote:Where the legionaries are required to be trained for least four months (Vegetius 1.1), the average crossbowmen only takes a few weeks of training (Gernet 125). Since the each Roman legionary has to go into close combat, training is only part of their skill since they also have to prove that they can hold in combat.
I think that's a highly contentious statement, and personally feel (but I could be wrong) that a man trained for only a few weeks doesn't stand a chance against a man who has hard daily training for four months.
Quote:The Chinese conscripts were only required to shoot in the same direction as the man next to him and thus face no fear. Barbarian auxiliaries provide an excellent source of training cavalry since most of them are nomads living their entire life on horsebacks. Their way of life is their training.
Thus, massed men and quick learned skills of the Chinese can easily defeat the selected few of the Romans.
I'd be interested to see what the Batavians here have to say to that
Interesting essay, thanks.
The Han armies are fascinating, and although we will never know, it would make a good "what if" story.