Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[p3t3r1]

Hi guys. I finally finished my reserach paper on the Rome vs Han topic. I went with Han superiority since it was easier and there were more resources to look at. I based on all research on books and have referenced all the books I consulted in my essay. Since I done this pretty quickly, I didn't have time to type up my work cited but you can find author's last name and page number if you want. I want to get some opinions on my essay since this thing worth a ton of marks. 20% of the entire course + 5% on presentation. If any experts here could scan it through and point out my mistakes I would be really grateful. Thanks alot.

I also need to shorten my 1500 words essay into 1000 words. If you see anything that is irrevelant, please let me know so I can delete it. Thisd is my second copy. I completely revamped the first since I felt it was more a dump of facts rather than essay. My third point on this essay is quite weak though.

Anyways.. here it is.

Rome vs Han: The Triumph of the Dragon
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle once said “we make war that we may live in peaceâ€

[Tarbicus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Virgil]

. In conclusion, it can be seen that the superiority technology of the Han weapons and equipments is one of the reasons why the Han Army is military stronger than the Augustan legions.

I think you’re effectively at a disadvantage in knowledge of Roman weaponry and tactics. Romans generally used auxiliary or allied cavalry instead their own in combat. I doubt the adoption of slow-firing crossbows would be decisive in a combat situation where Romans had learned how to fight armies consisting heavily of missile wielding troops. After Carrhae they learned and learned well. The Romans weren’t ‘limited’ to the gladius, they deliberately chose it for it’s effectiveness in close-quarter combat.

… Because the Roman military tactics limit much of action to its elite heavy infantry, the Roman military will suffer as a result when facing the Chinese.

Typical wargamer approach to the essence of combat. You’ve missed a key and important point that subverts your assumption. After Carrhae the Romans learned and learned well on how to deal with Parthia’s ‘missile dominance’. They effectively fought against Parthians afterwards, even sacking the Parthian capital several times in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Tactics were much more complex than limiting it to ‘elite heavy infantry’, in fact in campaigns such as against the Dacians auxiliary troops—mounted and dismounted--played a large role in the fighting.

You’ve falsely assumed a one dimensional approach by the Roman army that closer research doesn’t agree with.

Here is something called Arrian’s Array which shows just how complex Roman formations were after two centuries of war with the Parthians. Note the high level of missile firing troops. See http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/ ... taxis.html

…The Han army is more skilled than the Augustan legions. …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.

Again your assumptions are incorrect. Romans regularly fought battles where they were outnumbered. Their strict close-order discipline and training of the legions even won the admiration of Parthian opponents. You assume Roman armies weren’t veterans of combat for some reason, and your dependence on the crossbow in this argument ignores the counter-missile approach of later Roman armies fighting against the—generally losing—Parthians.

How in essence is a Han army more skilled? As I’ve said most Roman armies were a mix of auxiliary and Roman soldiers with different skill sets from missile to mounted, none of that seems much different from the Han. You haven't even touched much on Roman training, discipline or skill.

]Although the Roman legions were respected and feared in the West, they would have met their match and be defeated in the East. Chinese technology, years ahead of other civilizations, was something the Romans would never have dreamed of. Chinese tactics, unheard of in the West, would have rendered the Roman ones useless. The size and the skill of the Roman army were inferior to the Chinese and those cannot hope to compete. It would have been an interesting match if the two superpowers ever met; history would be radically different.

I wouldn’t pat yourself on the back so soon. Frankly the Han themselves never met a formation even closely similar to a Roman army. You’ve made a lot of incorrect assumptions and ‘stacked the deck’ in the Han’s favor, not conceding any strength to the Roman army and accepting a simplistic view of the Roman army over the more complex approach they generally took against a skilled enemy.

Peter Li

Hmm, another nationalist Han v. Rome argument (they're all over the web.) Did you once post as Anthrophobia on simaqianstudio.com?

____
Frank

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi guys. I finally finished my reserach paper on the Rome vs Han topic. I went with Han superiority since it was easier and there were more resources to look at.

Hi Peter,

Nice one! I'm very interested how you'll answer Jim and Virgil's repostes.

[Tarbicus]

Where are the Batavians!? Come on lads, swim over in full armour and defend your honour! Show the Han what archery's really all about

[Robert Vermaat]

Swim over? Gladly! But over what? Who is invading whose territory? Or are we supposed to meet deep inside Parthian territory?

[Eleatic Guest]

The problem with Temple, your main source, is that he is not only often clueless, but he also has a chip on his shoulder as big as the Chinese wall is long. For his statement that crossbow bolts "penetrate two suits of medieval full plate armor with ease" alone, he would have ripped to pieces in a half an hour at the Sword and Armour forum. The same with many of his other 'findings' you quoted.

[Eleatic Guest]

I actually found - by chance - a primary source reference as to the supreme quality of ancient Chinese iron. It is in Pliny 34.41:

But of all the different kinds of iron, the palm of excellence is awarded to that which is made by the Seres,8 who send it to us with their tissues and skins;9 next to which, in quality, is the Parthian10 iron. Indeed, none of the other kinds of iron are made of the pure hard metal, a softer alloy being welded with them all.

In our part of the world, a vein of ore is occasionally found to yield a metal of this high quality, as in Noricum11 for instance; but, in other cases, it derives its value from the mode of working it, as at Sulmo,12 for example, a result owing to the nature of its water, as already stated.

Pliny 34.41

The footnote number 8, however, says "this Seric iron has not been identified", apparently meaning that it is unclear to what people or region Pliny actually refers to. Moreover, it is not clear to me, whether Pliny speaks of iron as a raw material or of worked iron. While Pliny seems to speaks in the first passage about man worked iron ("made", "welded"), the second passage rather suggests he means the natural quality of the iron as found in the earth, prior to any working process (" a vein of ore is occasionally found to yield a metal of this high quality").

Anyone can help?

Edit: On a second view - I am no native speaker - Pliny speaks of the raw material, doesnt he?

[Tarbicus]

the second passage rather suggests he means the natural quality of the iron as found in the earth, prior to any working process (" a vein of ore is occasionally found to yield a metal of this high quality").

Reads the same to me. I vaguely remember a reference to the best quality iron coming from Germania, but can't remember where. This Wiki article has something about the Seres (northwestern Chinese):
[urldgrnnjw]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres[/url]

Here's a PDF discussing Roman and Chinese relationships:
[urldgrnnjw]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/e/w/ewg118/li-chien.pdf[/url]

[Dan Howard]

Ignoring the fact that most crossbows are unlikely to penetrate one medieval breastplate, let alone two, the assumption that the so-called armour-piercing capability of any weapon is enough to effect a battle assumes that the majority of a host is actually heavily armoured. This is rarely the case. I also find it extremely hard to believe that the metallurgical content of weapons and armour between opposing armies differed so greatly that they might affect the outcome of a battle.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

intersting paper but i agree that the view is mostly one-sided. Chinese armies faced different opponents and fought on different terrain so the composition of the army is very different.

I went with Han superiority since it was easier

hock: What are your reasons for that?

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.

And were are the auxilia in your article! The auxilia were a vital part of Roman army

Comparing 2 superpowers with eachother is tricky - i would have made an article about the strenght AND weakness of both armies and try to compare them after that.

[Peroni]

Where are the Batavians!? Come on lads, swim over in full armour and defend your honour! Show the Han what archery's really all about

It is said that the Batavians could make river crossings fully armed, but they most likely made reed rafts for their equipment and swam the rivers holding onto their horses. The implication is that the Batavians possessed a unique skill. However, there is a gravestone of a certain Soranus, a Syrian trooper in a miliary cohort, possibly the emperor’s personal horseguard which details the man's skill in archery. Soranus' epitaph records that in 118A.D he, before the Emperor Hadrian, swam the Danube and performed the following feats..

(CIL 03, 03676 = AE 1958, 0151).

Ille ego Pannoniis quondam notissimus oris
inter mille viros fortis primusq(ue) Batavos
Hadriano potui qui iudice vasta profundi
aequora Danuvii cunctis transnare sub armis
emissumq(ue) arcu dum pendet in aere telum
ac redit ex alia fixi fregique sagitta
quem neque Romanus potuit nec barbarus unquam
non iaculo miles non arcu vincere Parthus
hic situs hic memori saxo mea facta sacravi
viderit an ne aliquis post me mea facta sequ[a]tur
exemplo mihi sum primus qui talia gessi

" . . . the man who, once very well known to the ranks in Pannonia, brave and foremost among one thousand Batavians, was able, with Hadrian as judge, to swim the wide waters of the deep Danube in full battle kit. From my bow I fired an arrow, and while it quivered still in the air and was falling back, with a second arrow I hit and broke it. No Roman or foreigner has ever managed to better this feat, no soldier with a javelin, no Parthian with a bow. Here I lie, here I have immortalised my deeds on an ever-mindful stone which will see if anyone after me will rival my deeds. I set a precedent for myself in being the first to achieve such featsâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Peroni\\n[quote]" . . . the man who, once very well known to the ranks in Pannonia, brave and foremost among one thousand Bataviansâ€

[floofthegoof]

apples and oranges.

It is of course impossible to know how each would react to the other, which really is the only thing that matters. What were the motivations for the soldiers to fight?

I don't know much about the Han, but I do know that when Rome and Carthage first came to blows, Rome had no navy. That quickly changed.

[First_Legionary]

Well first off I think you should go give this speech about Han superiority to the Yellow Turbans and see what they think. :lol: :lol: :lol: =P

Well anyways this is almost a completly biased argument. You almost make it sound as as if the Romans would have stood there and waited to die. Most likely the Hun crossbow men would have been out flanked by allied calvary and cut down. 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. The Parthians had been fighting against Seleucid, so they had expierience fighting against slow moving armies. And in all of Rome's later battles (with ACTUAL generals) the Parthians were crushed.

Parthia also relied heavily on on deception against the Romans. Early on Parthian spies tricked Crassus into falling for trap, after trap. Using their horse archers to pin them down, Crassus sent his son and his son's gallic calvary after the horse archers who then surrounded his calvary with Horse Archers and cataphracts, butchering them. Upon doing so they placed his son's head on a spear and rode it in front of the Roman armies, unerving an already rattled Crassus. Chances are the Han wouldn't get another Crassus to fight, and if they did Rome would have sent a Pompey after them.

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.

Well that's my two-cents...now I'll just let the experts come in here and tell me how far off base I was and how innacurate all of my ranting was. :lol: =P