05-23-2006, 07:59 PM
Interesting arguments, wish I posted earlier so that I might have taken some of the excellent arguments here in my essay. Too late now, already handed it in. Have a 15 minutes presentation tomorrow though. But I won't compare who is superior since it it is the same thing I said in my essay and also quite hard to convince people. I will merely introduce the weapons, tatics and the compositon of each army and give them a sense of ancient warfare on both sides of the world.
the Chinese crossbows resemble the very simple weapons that appear in a few early Roman reliefs-- these were apparently regarded as suitable only for hunting by the Romans until the late empire. This weak, low-velocity weapon would be suitable only against unarmored, massed opponents (which the Han armies probably faced in the form of mass peasant levies by states that didn't want to be "assimilated")
Interesting, according to my sources in Peers who wrote in the Osprey for Imperial Chinese Armies (1), Chinese crossbow had drawn weights of up to 350 lbs and had sometimes to be pulled by a very strong man. This is obviously the extreme but that would be a quite powerful bolt if it was released.
Chinese crossbow was not used only against the peasents. Civil wars, a regular theme during the Chinese history, saw massive employments of crossbows. Keep in mind that these soldiers are not light armor. Alot of them equppied Lamellar. If musy have been pretty effective for the Chinese to use it until the rise of heavily armored cavalry.
I beg to differ from the simple crossbow you had in mind. Sam Adshead, in his book, on page 10, mentioned of highly precised bronze firing mechanisms that couldn't be produced else where. In fact, these crossbows were so complicated in design that barbarians could not learn how to make them even after they deassembled them. It is also a close guarded secret in China, no crossbow was premitted to be traded to the foreigners. Thus, if it was so simple, why did they guard it so closely?
As far as penetrating plate armor, don't make me laugh. The lorica segmentata has been tested against a Roman scorpion torsion catapult at full cock, capable of delivering a bolt at many times the velocity and penetrating power of the Chinese crossbow. In every case but one, the bolt simply bounced off (once, a bolt managed to wedge itself into the gap between two girth hoops and would have probably killed the wearer, but this is a hundred-to-one shot).
Interesting, can you cite your source?
Speaking of scorpions, each Roman legion could deploy at least 50 of these weapons, much more powerful than the Chinese double-bow catapult, plus a number of larger siege engines in any set piece battle. Not to mention the Levantine and Numidian auxiliary archers, who could fill the air with arrows fired from powerful recurve bows, and the Balearic slingers, who could whip up clouds of deadly lead bullets.
A major tactic of the crossbow is to use it to fire a continual barrage. The scorpion, although powerful, could not rain the sky with bolts. Thus, it could not stop an enemy's advanced when compared with a wall of bolts. It is deadly none the less, I do admit but only effective in killing a few man at a time.
Cast iron is actually inferior to forged iron in the manufacture of blades and most weapons applications. It may produce some lovely art, but that won't help you win many battles.
According to Temple, who quoted from Joseph Needham, a famous Chinese history professor/research. Cast iron had more strength and solidity. Brittle,yes, but also quite hard. How about steel? These steel swords were so refined that they could cut through rocks (According to Temple).
die. Most likely the Hun crossbow men would have been out flanked by allied calvary and cut down.
How about Chinese cavalry? Cavalry had lots of Steepe archers and was quite powerful. It was able to fight battle simply by itself against the Barbarians.
You are also ignoring the fact that Carrhae was a battle that should have been won and that Crassus is just a horrible general, not to mention the use of cataphract calvary by the Parthians would have unnerved any soldier.
Crassus could be a horrible general, heard this one quite a few times. How about Mark Anthony, is he a poor general too? He almost got his army slaugtered. Cataphract didn't not play a significant role, according to John Warry who edited/wrote Warfare in the Classical World.
Rome had a proffesional army for the record, and battle hardened Legions would have stood their ground much longer than Han infantry would have. If the Han infantry had tried to stand toe-to-toe with the Romans they would have been butchered.
Stand-toe to toe, yeah. I doubt the Han had infantry quality on the same level as the Romans. The idea is to slaughter/rout them before they come in close.
Quote:
The two civilizations were like predators, driven by their hunting instinct, always searching for more prey
hmm, to simplistic for my part and not true IMHO
I simply used that to give some imaginy to the essay. Not based on any factical evidecnes. Thanks for pointint that out though.
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
This information would be quite useful for my presentation, thanks. I will take a closer look.
Hmm, another nationalist Han v. Rome argument (they're all over the web.) Did you once post as Anthrophobia on simaqianstudio.com?
Name seems familiar but this is the first time I posted on this matter. Heh, nationalist. Nah, I just wanted to combine elements of the Roman and Han military in my paper since I am really interested in it. The Han vs Rome topic seems to be quite interesting and I thus took it in the knowledge that my history teacher could completely reject it and give me a big fat 0. Hope that won't happen since I obviously spent alot of work on it. Hard to get people's opinions either since whenever I get someone else to check it. I always get the impression that I didn't know a thing and did no research. Well, can't turn back now,. Paper has already been handed.
Here is my work cited if anyone is interested.
Works Cited
Adshead, S.A.M. China in World History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
Connolly, Peter. The Roman Army. London: Macdonald Educational, 1975.
Cotterell, Arthur. Chariot. London: Pimlico, 2004.
Cowan, Ross. Roman Legionary. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003.
Gernet, Jacques. A History of the Chinese Civilizations. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Hackett, John, ed. Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Sidgwick & Jackson Limited,
1989.
Hong, Yan. Ancient Chinese Weapons. Hong Kong: Kico & Kico, 1999.
Huang, Ray. China: A Macro History. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc, 1997.
Karasulas, Anthony. Mounted Archers of the Steppe. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004.
Needham, Joseph. Cambridge history of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Nicolle, David. Italian Militiamen. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1999.
Peers, CJ. Imperial Chinese Armies (1). Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002.
Plutarch, Mestrius. Crassus. New York: Oxford Unviersity Press, 1994.
Temple, Robert. The Genius of China. London: Simion & Schuster Inc, 1986.
Vegetius, Flavius Renatus. De Re Militari. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. London: Salamander Book, 1980.
Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army. London: Oklahoma University Press,
1998.
The third edited version i handed in:
Rome vs Han: The Triumph of the Dragon
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said, “we make war that we may live in peaceâ€
the Chinese crossbows resemble the very simple weapons that appear in a few early Roman reliefs-- these were apparently regarded as suitable only for hunting by the Romans until the late empire. This weak, low-velocity weapon would be suitable only against unarmored, massed opponents (which the Han armies probably faced in the form of mass peasant levies by states that didn't want to be "assimilated")
Interesting, according to my sources in Peers who wrote in the Osprey for Imperial Chinese Armies (1), Chinese crossbow had drawn weights of up to 350 lbs and had sometimes to be pulled by a very strong man. This is obviously the extreme but that would be a quite powerful bolt if it was released.
Chinese crossbow was not used only against the peasents. Civil wars, a regular theme during the Chinese history, saw massive employments of crossbows. Keep in mind that these soldiers are not light armor. Alot of them equppied Lamellar. If musy have been pretty effective for the Chinese to use it until the rise of heavily armored cavalry.
I beg to differ from the simple crossbow you had in mind. Sam Adshead, in his book, on page 10, mentioned of highly precised bronze firing mechanisms that couldn't be produced else where. In fact, these crossbows were so complicated in design that barbarians could not learn how to make them even after they deassembled them. It is also a close guarded secret in China, no crossbow was premitted to be traded to the foreigners. Thus, if it was so simple, why did they guard it so closely?
As far as penetrating plate armor, don't make me laugh. The lorica segmentata has been tested against a Roman scorpion torsion catapult at full cock, capable of delivering a bolt at many times the velocity and penetrating power of the Chinese crossbow. In every case but one, the bolt simply bounced off (once, a bolt managed to wedge itself into the gap between two girth hoops and would have probably killed the wearer, but this is a hundred-to-one shot).
Interesting, can you cite your source?
Speaking of scorpions, each Roman legion could deploy at least 50 of these weapons, much more powerful than the Chinese double-bow catapult, plus a number of larger siege engines in any set piece battle. Not to mention the Levantine and Numidian auxiliary archers, who could fill the air with arrows fired from powerful recurve bows, and the Balearic slingers, who could whip up clouds of deadly lead bullets.
A major tactic of the crossbow is to use it to fire a continual barrage. The scorpion, although powerful, could not rain the sky with bolts. Thus, it could not stop an enemy's advanced when compared with a wall of bolts. It is deadly none the less, I do admit but only effective in killing a few man at a time.
Cast iron is actually inferior to forged iron in the manufacture of blades and most weapons applications. It may produce some lovely art, but that won't help you win many battles.
According to Temple, who quoted from Joseph Needham, a famous Chinese history professor/research. Cast iron had more strength and solidity. Brittle,yes, but also quite hard. How about steel? These steel swords were so refined that they could cut through rocks (According to Temple).
die. Most likely the Hun crossbow men would have been out flanked by allied calvary and cut down.
How about Chinese cavalry? Cavalry had lots of Steepe archers and was quite powerful. It was able to fight battle simply by itself against the Barbarians.
You are also ignoring the fact that Carrhae was a battle that should have been won and that Crassus is just a horrible general, not to mention the use of cataphract calvary by the Parthians would have unnerved any soldier.
Crassus could be a horrible general, heard this one quite a few times. How about Mark Anthony, is he a poor general too? He almost got his army slaugtered. Cataphract didn't not play a significant role, according to John Warry who edited/wrote Warfare in the Classical World.
Rome had a proffesional army for the record, and battle hardened Legions would have stood their ground much longer than Han infantry would have. If the Han infantry had tried to stand toe-to-toe with the Romans they would have been butchered.
Stand-toe to toe, yeah. I doubt the Han had infantry quality on the same level as the Romans. The idea is to slaughter/rout them before they come in close.
Quote:
The two civilizations were like predators, driven by their hunting instinct, always searching for more prey
hmm, to simplistic for my part and not true IMHO
I simply used that to give some imaginy to the essay. Not based on any factical evidecnes. Thanks for pointint that out though.
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
This information would be quite useful for my presentation, thanks. I will take a closer look.
Hmm, another nationalist Han v. Rome argument (they're all over the web.) Did you once post as Anthrophobia on simaqianstudio.com?
Name seems familiar but this is the first time I posted on this matter. Heh, nationalist. Nah, I just wanted to combine elements of the Roman and Han military in my paper since I am really interested in it. The Han vs Rome topic seems to be quite interesting and I thus took it in the knowledge that my history teacher could completely reject it and give me a big fat 0. Hope that won't happen since I obviously spent alot of work on it. Hard to get people's opinions either since whenever I get someone else to check it. I always get the impression that I didn't know a thing and did no research. Well, can't turn back now,. Paper has already been handed.
Here is my work cited if anyone is interested.
Works Cited
Adshead, S.A.M. China in World History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
Connolly, Peter. The Roman Army. London: Macdonald Educational, 1975.
Cotterell, Arthur. Chariot. London: Pimlico, 2004.
Cowan, Ross. Roman Legionary. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003.
Gernet, Jacques. A History of the Chinese Civilizations. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Hackett, John, ed. Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Sidgwick & Jackson Limited,
1989.
Hong, Yan. Ancient Chinese Weapons. Hong Kong: Kico & Kico, 1999.
Huang, Ray. China: A Macro History. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc, 1997.
Karasulas, Anthony. Mounted Archers of the Steppe. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004.
Needham, Joseph. Cambridge history of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Nicolle, David. Italian Militiamen. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1999.
Peers, CJ. Imperial Chinese Armies (1). Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002.
Plutarch, Mestrius. Crassus. New York: Oxford Unviersity Press, 1994.
Temple, Robert. The Genius of China. London: Simion & Schuster Inc, 1986.
Vegetius, Flavius Renatus. De Re Militari. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. London: Salamander Book, 1980.
Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army. London: Oklahoma University Press,
1998.
The third edited version i handed in:
Rome vs Han: The Triumph of the Dragon
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said, “we make war that we may live in peaceâ€
----------------------------
Peter Li
History student
Peter Li
History student
