10-17-2002, 10:23 PM
Here's the last post on the subject from Duncan Head.<br>
<br>
Before I comment on Mark's excellent post: the "Romans" theory is<br>
said to be debunked in Paolo Daffinà , "Chih-chih shan-yü", in Rivista<br>
degli studi orientali 44 (Roma, 1969) pp 199-232 and 325. Alberto,<br>
this was the work I mentioned to you - I thought it was a reference<br>
to a book, but on checking I find it's a journal article. Let us all<br>
know if you track it down. My email's not working this morning, so<br>
can't email you direct yet!<br>
<br>
<br>
"Mark E. Hall" <markhall@g...> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 1. He uses the account of the battle from the Han-shu. ...<br>
> Dubs gives no evidence on if this event is recorded elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I've not seen a reference to any other description.<br>
<br>
> 2. Now, the formation seen by the Chinese is called yu-lin-chen<br>
> ... Dubs notes that this is the only time the<br>
> three particular Chinese characters occur together. Now, Dubs<br>
> interprets this as "fish scale formation." Dubs does note that<br>
> there is the term yu-li chih chen that is used to describe military<br>
> formations in the Zhou period. He interprets this as meaning "an<br>
> array like a school of fish". He sees this second term being used<br>
> to describe a mixed chariot and foot troop formation that is<br>
> densely packed. He argues in the appendix, that these two terms<br>
> don't mean the same and couldn't be inter-changed, etc. I don't<br>
> know Chinese linguistics, so I can't really judge this at all.<br>
<br>
Me neither, really. The Zhou term certainly means a formation of<br>
alternating groups of chariots and infantry - it's described in a<br>
little detail in Zuo Quan - but whether school or scales is the best<br>
translation is beyond me.<br>
<br>
However, it's worth noting that some term or other translated "fish<br>
scale formation" is used in Japanese sources to describe a cavalry<br>
wedge formation - it appears in Taiheiki and earlier, I think in<br>
Hogen Monogatari. Regardless of the exact characters used, this<br>
suggests that formations other than overlapping shields could suggest<br>
fish-scales to an observer.<br>
<br>
> 3. On page 65, the dated value of Dubs' logic concerning the<br>
> Xiong-nu is clearly evident. He says: "These soldiers must have<br>
> been drawn up in such a manner that they crowded together and<br>
> overlapped their shields. To accomplish this feat successfully<br>
> requires a high degree of discipline (not the sort of thing any<br>
> nomadic people, such as the Huns, could have achieved) and implies<br>
> a considerable degree of civilization, indeed possibly a long<br>
> period of military training on the part of the soldiers. Nomads<br>
> and barbarians such as the Gauls rushed to battle in a confused<br>
<br>
It is worth noting, in addition to Mark's points, that there are<br>
several Roman references to Gauls overlapping their shields; so even<br>
if fish-scale does mean overlapping shields, it doesn't imply Roman<br>
degrees of professionalism.<br>
<br>
More to the point, did Romans of Crassus' period really overlap their<br>
shields? The scuta of the period were quite strongly curved, even<br>
though not as heavily as the later "Trajanic" semi-cylindrical type,<br>
and I'm not quite sure how they could physically be overlapped.<br>
(Their Gallic equivalents, though coming from a related tradition,<br>
were of course flat.)<br>
<br>
> Well, over 70 years later, all I can say is, with discoveries at<br>
> Ivolga and Derstui, his view of the nomads is highly suspect.<br>
> Sure, we don't have any solid evidence of the Xiong-nu fighting<br>
> with shields, but to assert like he does the simplicity of their<br>
> tactics and society is just plain wrong...and to hold that view is<br>
> just plain wrong IMO.<br>
<br>
One possible link between the Xiongnu and shielded infantry is the<br>
art of the Siberian Tashtyk culture, which seems to show infantry<br>
archers sheltering behind some sort of large pavise; this was on the<br>
fringes of the Xiongnu sphere. See the first plate in Nicolle's<br>
"Attila and the Nomad Hordes" for a reconstruction, and I think he<br>
might also illustrate the original wood-carvings; I've also got some<br>
of these in an old BM exhibition catalogue somewhere. Rather a<br>
tentative link, but it does suggest that shielded infantry were not<br>
unknown in North Asia at this time.<br>
<br>
And doesn't some Han Chinese writer refer to crossbow-bolts piercing<br>
Xiongnu wooden shields - though that could mean cavalry shields, of<br>
course.<br>
<br>
> 4. On the fate of the defeated Roman soldiers. Dubs does not cite<br>
> any Classical sources for the fate of these soldiers. He cites a<br>
> personal conversation with W. W. Tarn! (p. 66). He doesn't say<br>
> where Tarn gets it from.<br>
<br>
It's Pliny who says that the prisoners were sent to Margiana, but he<br>
says nothing about what happened when they got there - Hist. Nat.<br>
6.18.47, describing "regio Margiane": "in hanc Orodes Romanos<br>
Crassiana clade captos deduxit".<br>
<br>
> He in no way, shape or form deals with getting these folks from<br>
> Margiana to Sogdiana.<br>
<br>
The probable location of the battle is even a bit further to travel<br>
than Sogdiana proper. Although Kangzhu is usually translated as<br>
Sogdiana, the geography in the Han Shu seems to refer to Sogdia<br>
proper - the region between Amu Darya/Oxus and Syr Darya/Jaxartes,<br>
centred on the Zerafshan valley - as the land of the Great Yuezhi,<br>
and to use Kangzhu for some area further to the north. Maenchen-<br>
Helfen, in "Huns and Hsiung-nu" (in Byzantion somewhen in the 1940s)<br>
points out that slightly later sources use Kangzhu and Su-de for two<br>
different regions, and Su-de is clearly a transliteration of Sogdia.<br>
He puts Kangzhu further north, in the Chu and Talas valleys. This<br>
makes sense to me since the Han Shu describes Kangzhu as a primarily<br>
nomad state, whereas Sogdia proper was principally sedentary and,<br>
after centuries of Achaemenid and Greek rule, already beginning to<br>
urbanise.<br>
<br>
> Personally, I don't find many logical or reasonable points to<br>
> connect in Dubs' argument. I find a lot of speculations,<br>
> assumptions, and ifs.<br>
<br>
Entirely agree.<br>
<br>
> If I want a lot of what-ifs, I'll read Munn again.<br>
<br>
There's also "Winter Quarters", by Alfred Duggan. The central<br>
character is one of Crassus' Gallic cavalrymen, who ends up serving<br>
the Parthians in a frontier garrison in Margiana - "Margu, the navel<br>
of the universe!". Recommended on the speculation front!<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 10/18/02 12:24:43 am<br></i>
<br>
Before I comment on Mark's excellent post: the "Romans" theory is<br>
said to be debunked in Paolo Daffinà , "Chih-chih shan-yü", in Rivista<br>
degli studi orientali 44 (Roma, 1969) pp 199-232 and 325. Alberto,<br>
this was the work I mentioned to you - I thought it was a reference<br>
to a book, but on checking I find it's a journal article. Let us all<br>
know if you track it down. My email's not working this morning, so<br>
can't email you direct yet!<br>
<br>
<br>
"Mark E. Hall" <markhall@g...> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 1. He uses the account of the battle from the Han-shu. ...<br>
> Dubs gives no evidence on if this event is recorded elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I've not seen a reference to any other description.<br>
<br>
> 2. Now, the formation seen by the Chinese is called yu-lin-chen<br>
> ... Dubs notes that this is the only time the<br>
> three particular Chinese characters occur together. Now, Dubs<br>
> interprets this as "fish scale formation." Dubs does note that<br>
> there is the term yu-li chih chen that is used to describe military<br>
> formations in the Zhou period. He interprets this as meaning "an<br>
> array like a school of fish". He sees this second term being used<br>
> to describe a mixed chariot and foot troop formation that is<br>
> densely packed. He argues in the appendix, that these two terms<br>
> don't mean the same and couldn't be inter-changed, etc. I don't<br>
> know Chinese linguistics, so I can't really judge this at all.<br>
<br>
Me neither, really. The Zhou term certainly means a formation of<br>
alternating groups of chariots and infantry - it's described in a<br>
little detail in Zuo Quan - but whether school or scales is the best<br>
translation is beyond me.<br>
<br>
However, it's worth noting that some term or other translated "fish<br>
scale formation" is used in Japanese sources to describe a cavalry<br>
wedge formation - it appears in Taiheiki and earlier, I think in<br>
Hogen Monogatari. Regardless of the exact characters used, this<br>
suggests that formations other than overlapping shields could suggest<br>
fish-scales to an observer.<br>
<br>
> 3. On page 65, the dated value of Dubs' logic concerning the<br>
> Xiong-nu is clearly evident. He says: "These soldiers must have<br>
> been drawn up in such a manner that they crowded together and<br>
> overlapped their shields. To accomplish this feat successfully<br>
> requires a high degree of discipline (not the sort of thing any<br>
> nomadic people, such as the Huns, could have achieved) and implies<br>
> a considerable degree of civilization, indeed possibly a long<br>
> period of military training on the part of the soldiers. Nomads<br>
> and barbarians such as the Gauls rushed to battle in a confused<br>
<br>
It is worth noting, in addition to Mark's points, that there are<br>
several Roman references to Gauls overlapping their shields; so even<br>
if fish-scale does mean overlapping shields, it doesn't imply Roman<br>
degrees of professionalism.<br>
<br>
More to the point, did Romans of Crassus' period really overlap their<br>
shields? The scuta of the period were quite strongly curved, even<br>
though not as heavily as the later "Trajanic" semi-cylindrical type,<br>
and I'm not quite sure how they could physically be overlapped.<br>
(Their Gallic equivalents, though coming from a related tradition,<br>
were of course flat.)<br>
<br>
> Well, over 70 years later, all I can say is, with discoveries at<br>
> Ivolga and Derstui, his view of the nomads is highly suspect.<br>
> Sure, we don't have any solid evidence of the Xiong-nu fighting<br>
> with shields, but to assert like he does the simplicity of their<br>
> tactics and society is just plain wrong...and to hold that view is<br>
> just plain wrong IMO.<br>
<br>
One possible link between the Xiongnu and shielded infantry is the<br>
art of the Siberian Tashtyk culture, which seems to show infantry<br>
archers sheltering behind some sort of large pavise; this was on the<br>
fringes of the Xiongnu sphere. See the first plate in Nicolle's<br>
"Attila and the Nomad Hordes" for a reconstruction, and I think he<br>
might also illustrate the original wood-carvings; I've also got some<br>
of these in an old BM exhibition catalogue somewhere. Rather a<br>
tentative link, but it does suggest that shielded infantry were not<br>
unknown in North Asia at this time.<br>
<br>
And doesn't some Han Chinese writer refer to crossbow-bolts piercing<br>
Xiongnu wooden shields - though that could mean cavalry shields, of<br>
course.<br>
<br>
> 4. On the fate of the defeated Roman soldiers. Dubs does not cite<br>
> any Classical sources for the fate of these soldiers. He cites a<br>
> personal conversation with W. W. Tarn! (p. 66). He doesn't say<br>
> where Tarn gets it from.<br>
<br>
It's Pliny who says that the prisoners were sent to Margiana, but he<br>
says nothing about what happened when they got there - Hist. Nat.<br>
6.18.47, describing "regio Margiane": "in hanc Orodes Romanos<br>
Crassiana clade captos deduxit".<br>
<br>
> He in no way, shape or form deals with getting these folks from<br>
> Margiana to Sogdiana.<br>
<br>
The probable location of the battle is even a bit further to travel<br>
than Sogdiana proper. Although Kangzhu is usually translated as<br>
Sogdiana, the geography in the Han Shu seems to refer to Sogdia<br>
proper - the region between Amu Darya/Oxus and Syr Darya/Jaxartes,<br>
centred on the Zerafshan valley - as the land of the Great Yuezhi,<br>
and to use Kangzhu for some area further to the north. Maenchen-<br>
Helfen, in "Huns and Hsiung-nu" (in Byzantion somewhen in the 1940s)<br>
points out that slightly later sources use Kangzhu and Su-de for two<br>
different regions, and Su-de is clearly a transliteration of Sogdia.<br>
He puts Kangzhu further north, in the Chu and Talas valleys. This<br>
makes sense to me since the Han Shu describes Kangzhu as a primarily<br>
nomad state, whereas Sogdia proper was principally sedentary and,<br>
after centuries of Achaemenid and Greek rule, already beginning to<br>
urbanise.<br>
<br>
> Personally, I don't find many logical or reasonable points to<br>
> connect in Dubs' argument. I find a lot of speculations,<br>
> assumptions, and ifs.<br>
<br>
Entirely agree.<br>
<br>
> If I want a lot of what-ifs, I'll read Munn again.<br>
<br>
There's also "Winter Quarters", by Alfred Duggan. The central<br>
character is one of Crassus' Gallic cavalrymen, who ends up serving<br>
the Parthians in a frontier garrison in Margiana - "Margu, the navel<br>
of the universe!". Recommended on the speculation front!<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 10/18/02 12:24:43 am<br></i>
