05-31-2006, 06:01 PM
Thanks Valerius, the thread was getting a bit derailed there...though I would suggest that "Rome versus Han" ought to include a look at the political systems as well as equipment, tactics, economy and demographics...
Anyway, I did some research during the last couple of days and stumbled upon many Han vs Rome threads. Most are boring as hell, since they apparently act as a focus for European-American and Chinese-American ethnic fanboyism.
However, is this thread is to produce an interesting "what-if" speculation and a piece of illuminating comparative history, I suggest both sides (Romanophiles and Sinophiles) do a bit of research. The only one who seems to be combining some knowledge of both sides with a degree of objectivity here is Stefan. It is much harder to find a level of factual information about the Han Chinese than about the Romans, but if you look around you can certainly find something:
Asian archery, with a stress on Chinese archery (including the reconstruction of a Qin- and a later Han-era crossbow):
http://www.atarn.org/frameindex.htm
Han metallurgy:
http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EncIt/EncIt.html
(Later) Han military organisation:
http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decr ... l#military
Conversely, a bit of advice to the Han side. The same arguments always prop up in Han vs Rome threads (on both sides) but the Han side has a tendency of putting forward claims (apart from the really ridiculous ones) that are, at the very least, disputable. For instance, one that I've seen Rick (Anthrophobia) use is that Han agriculture was vastly more productive than Roman agriculture, because the Han had yields of 1:10 and the Romans of 1:2.5, meaning that the Han harvested 10 seeds for every one sown, and the Romans just 2.5.
Ahem...a recent figure I've seen for Roman agricultural yields was 1:8 (though I would love to know, is that an estimated Imperial average, or an average in the Mediterranean provinces, or what?). The low yields mentioned may be based on some low figures from early medieval Europe (I've seen figures of 1:3 and 1:4), and not bothering much with the niceties of the impact of climate, soil etc. As for the Han figure, I understood it's based on literary evidence; I personally wonder whether it was really an average, an ideal or a real, if maximal, probability.
Another thing is the draw weight of Han crossbows. Rick cheerfully mentions 350 pounds as typical, and I presume again based on literary references.
Personally, I would prefer data based on archaeological finds and practical tests with reconstructed bows. Two members of the Atarn forum had ancient Chinese crossbows reconstructed, and these had draw weights of respectively 60 and 55 pounds. Stephen Selby, the author of a book on Chinese archery, did intend to have a more powerful one made with a draw weight of 100 pounds (I sure hope this was done and that he will publish the results), but all three figures are still a far cry from 350.
Finally, a little point regarding the "fifty Central Asian oasis states" that are often mentioned to prove that, yes, Han China faced more powerful enemies than just the Xiong-Nu. Those fifty states? The largest of those, Ferghana, was a respectable kingdom with, according to Chinese sources, 300,000 people. That would make it a (potential) opponent of the order of magnitude of Dacia, which is not inconsiderable. However, all the others, with the exception of Khotan and Kashgar which were about the size of a respectable Greek polis (Corinth, Athens before its imperial era) were tiny. And I really mean tiny: they included such powerhouses of the ancient world like Karghalik (about 10,000 inhabitants), Turfan (about 4,000 inhabitants), and Dere (a whopping 670 people).
The states of Nan-Yue and Choson sound like more formidable opponents, though I suspect not enough is known about them to make a proper assessment of their strength; from what I've read they sure succumbed easily enough, but then again, Mauretania was easily annexed by Nero and Trajan crushed Dacia like a bug.
The lesson is: always check your supposed facts, and if they are either uncertain or don't support your case, don't mention them.
As for me? I want both a manuballista AND a reconstructed Qin or Han crossbow, by Mithras! :wink:
Anyway, I did some research during the last couple of days and stumbled upon many Han vs Rome threads. Most are boring as hell, since they apparently act as a focus for European-American and Chinese-American ethnic fanboyism.
However, is this thread is to produce an interesting "what-if" speculation and a piece of illuminating comparative history, I suggest both sides (Romanophiles and Sinophiles) do a bit of research. The only one who seems to be combining some knowledge of both sides with a degree of objectivity here is Stefan. It is much harder to find a level of factual information about the Han Chinese than about the Romans, but if you look around you can certainly find something:
Asian archery, with a stress on Chinese archery (including the reconstruction of a Qin- and a later Han-era crossbow):
http://www.atarn.org/frameindex.htm
Han metallurgy:
http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EncIt/EncIt.html
(Later) Han military organisation:
http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decr ... l#military
Conversely, a bit of advice to the Han side. The same arguments always prop up in Han vs Rome threads (on both sides) but the Han side has a tendency of putting forward claims (apart from the really ridiculous ones) that are, at the very least, disputable. For instance, one that I've seen Rick (Anthrophobia) use is that Han agriculture was vastly more productive than Roman agriculture, because the Han had yields of 1:10 and the Romans of 1:2.5, meaning that the Han harvested 10 seeds for every one sown, and the Romans just 2.5.
Ahem...a recent figure I've seen for Roman agricultural yields was 1:8 (though I would love to know, is that an estimated Imperial average, or an average in the Mediterranean provinces, or what?). The low yields mentioned may be based on some low figures from early medieval Europe (I've seen figures of 1:3 and 1:4), and not bothering much with the niceties of the impact of climate, soil etc. As for the Han figure, I understood it's based on literary evidence; I personally wonder whether it was really an average, an ideal or a real, if maximal, probability.
Another thing is the draw weight of Han crossbows. Rick cheerfully mentions 350 pounds as typical, and I presume again based on literary references.
Personally, I would prefer data based on archaeological finds and practical tests with reconstructed bows. Two members of the Atarn forum had ancient Chinese crossbows reconstructed, and these had draw weights of respectively 60 and 55 pounds. Stephen Selby, the author of a book on Chinese archery, did intend to have a more powerful one made with a draw weight of 100 pounds (I sure hope this was done and that he will publish the results), but all three figures are still a far cry from 350.
Finally, a little point regarding the "fifty Central Asian oasis states" that are often mentioned to prove that, yes, Han China faced more powerful enemies than just the Xiong-Nu. Those fifty states? The largest of those, Ferghana, was a respectable kingdom with, according to Chinese sources, 300,000 people. That would make it a (potential) opponent of the order of magnitude of Dacia, which is not inconsiderable. However, all the others, with the exception of Khotan and Kashgar which were about the size of a respectable Greek polis (Corinth, Athens before its imperial era) were tiny. And I really mean tiny: they included such powerhouses of the ancient world like Karghalik (about 10,000 inhabitants), Turfan (about 4,000 inhabitants), and Dere (a whopping 670 people).
The states of Nan-Yue and Choson sound like more formidable opponents, though I suspect not enough is known about them to make a proper assessment of their strength; from what I've read they sure succumbed easily enough, but then again, Mauretania was easily annexed by Nero and Trajan crushed Dacia like a bug.
The lesson is: always check your supposed facts, and if they are either uncertain or don't support your case, don't mention them.
As for me? I want both a manuballista AND a reconstructed Qin or Han crossbow, by Mithras! :wink:
Andreas Baede
