Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions
#16
The crossbows you see in the "terracotta armies" of China are a far cry from the medieval Western crossbow, with its forged iron crossbar and stirrup or windless cocking mechanism, which added enormously to the velocity and penetrating power. In fact, 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")

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).

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.

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.

In short, Li, your article is a crock. There is no obvious superiority in the Han armies. A hypothetical match-up between the Roman army at its peak and the Han army would have been an interesting (not to say extremely bloody) affair, but the outcome is far from clear. I'd bet the first clash would have been a bloody draw, maybe a tactical defeat for the Romans (a la the encounter with Pyrrhus and the Punic wars), but the Romans would have learned and adapted more quickly than the sclerotic Chinese, and the next few battles would go decisively their way.
T. Flavius Crispus / David S. Michaels
Centurio Pilus Prior,
Legio VI VPF
CA, USA

"Oderint dum probent."
Tiberius
Reply
#17
Quote:So was he a Syrian or a Syrian serving in a Batavian cohort?
His archery skills sound like a Syrian, maybe he learnt how to swim from the Batavi?

As far as we know Robert he was Syrian serving in a "Batavian" cohort.

It could refer to COH II M Eq , or Coh III M Eq. or even possibly Coh VIIII M.

Or, it could also mean the Equites Singulari Augusti. But yes, by that time, the levies were not just coming from the Cohorts homelands.

Regards,
Reply
#18
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€
----------------------------
Peter Li
History student
Reply
#19
Please let me clarify a few things. One thing I noted is that people who have an interest in Chinese history usually do know more about Roman history than vice versa. While that may make some Roman aficionado embarrassed, this advantage in knowledge lead indeeds in discussions like this, as Virgil rightly pointed out, to 'stack the deck' in favour of ones likings. So just a few basic things about the military system of Han China:


1. Han China (206 BC - AD 220), unlike the Imperium Romanum after 100 BC, did not have a standing army.

Typical Han Chinese armies were mass conscripted peasant armies. Although some people claim otherwise, this situation did not significantly change in the eastern Han dynasty (AD 25- AD 220), where the strategical reserve army based at the capital Luoyang comprised altogether only five standing regiments with about 700 men each (see here) The rest of the army still consisted as in Western Han of the general levy and the garrisons in the north.



What this conscript system means for the quality and motivation of the individual peasant soldier as opposed to the professionalism of the legionaire seems clear. The economic strain which the extraction of masses of peasant during summer, that is harvest time, poses on the national economy of the empire is also evident.


2. Han Chinese armies were not bigger than Roman armies.

One often reads the claim that Han China had more manpower at its disposal and Han Chinese armies were bigger. I dont think this is true, at least not in the scale claimed. First, while, for instance, the 5 million Persians of Herodot have been convincingly scaled down to 100.000-200.000 troops, modern Chinese historians have been less critical in accepting army sizes given by ancient Chinese historiography, often adopting numbers on a one on one basis.

This practice is usually defended by pointing to the demographics of China which leads me to the second point: The Chinese census of AD 2 gives 58 million people (according to another ancient manuscript 56 million). For the Imperium, conservative modern estimates, based on Augustus' censuses of the Romans with citizenship, vary between 45 and 60 million. However, while Han demography had reached its all time climax by the time of this census - soon after the Yellow River, by changing its course caused massive floods and famines, and the later Han never became economically as prosperous nor politically as stable as the earlier - virtually all historians agree that the IR experienced a sustained population rise for the next 160 years until the Antonine plague. In other words, the demographic curve of the two empires intersected around Augustus time in favour of the Romans, which basically means that the argument of endless Han Chinese human waves branding on the scutum of the lone legionaire lacks a credible demographic basis.


3. Han Chinese army were not particulary mobile.

There is often mention of Carrhae to point out the"immobility" of the Roman heavy infantry. This is contrasted by the "superior" mobility of the Chinese army. Honestly, I dont know where this claim comes from. Ancient Chinese forces have a long tradition of being rather immobile. Even as late as the so-called Warring States period (475 BC - 221 BC), the mobile branch of Chinese armies consisted mainly out of chariots, which only fell gradually out of favour. Cavalry was only very slowly adopted and then only the light one:

Albert Dien in his THE STIRRUP AND ITS EFFECT ON CHINESE MILITARY HISTORY writes: "The evidence we have indicates that cavalry in China was of the "light" variety until at least the fourth century A.D...The military array of the pottery figures calls to mind the description in the Zhan'guoce of the Qin army of one million warriors wearing armor, one thousand chariots, and ten thousand cavalry. The ratio supports what the pits seem to indicate, that the cavalry at that time was a relatively minor part of the military force...Cavalry apparently gained in importance during the Han, but the uses to which it was put perhaps did not change very much. In the army of figurines found in YangjiawanP the infantry still greatly outnumbers the cavalry--by approximately 2,000 to 600--but whether this ratio of three to one was typical of Han armies is not clear...The Chinese and their nomad opponents are distinguished (in the Han relief at Xiaotangshan) only by their headgear. This cavalry can still be classified as "light," because we see no evidence of heavy armor for either rider or mount or any indication of the use of massed charges...In the lintel relief from the facade of the tomb at Yi'nan,' possibly late Han or slightly later (Fig. 17), there seems to be very little change in the attack."

In a word, in the period of time concerning us, that is 200 BC - AD 200, Chinese armies deployed cavalry only "in the light variety" and only in a supporting role. Making a Carrhae was as far away from the Han Chinese army as making Trafalgar was for Napoleon.


4. Han Chinese troops were short on the armour side. Heavy cavalry was virtually unknown to the Chinese until the 4th century.

The mass of Han Chinese foot troops were usually not armoured or only lightly. The only metal armour know was scale armour. Chain-mail like the lorica hamata was completely unknown, so was practically plate armour like the lorica segmentata (unless one wants to count the odd smallish breastplates, not unlike those of the Samnites, as such). The usual armour, if any was worn, was non-metallic lamellar armour, but even this armour was much less widespread than lorica segmentata, hamata or squamata among the Romans.

Cataphracts and Clibanarii were neither used or known to neither the Chinese nor their Eastern Asian nomadic enemies until the 4th century, when those types were adopted from the Iranian West. The transition from predominantly infantry based warfare with conscripts to predominantly cavalry based warfare by full-time warriors was, as one can expect, slow and took several hundred years; Bien sheds an interesting light on this process and the general usefulness of the typical Chinese conscript armies up to that point: "In the foregoing account of the events during this struggle in the sixth century figures concerning the number of troops involved occur, but they are few, and any analysis based on such numbers must be tentative at best. Nevertheless, there are parallels that may be drawn between the conflicts of east and west in the fourth and in the sixth centuries. We have seen that the large-scale mobilization by Liu Yao in 323 was not considered a serious threat; similarly, the campaigns of 564 and 575 that involved large-scale mobilizations were not particularly successful. The same may be said of Shi Hu's attack on Yan by five hundred thousand men in 342 ,,the enormous concentration of manpower assembled by Fu Jianbi in 383. In all of these cases the administrative techniques employed to mobilize such numbers far outstripped the capacity to use them effectively in the field: the significant victories were won by smaller numbers of more highly trained troops. The information we have suggests that the cavalry, both light and heavy, came to be an essential part of the armed forces, that greater reliance was placed on these mounted warriors and less on the poorly armed and inadequately trained infantry raised by large-scale levies for specific campaigns."


5. Han China had no (open water) navy

The Han had no open water warships worth the name as navy activities were typically constricted to riverine warfare. Actually, whole Eastern Asia then had no naval tradition worth the name. Sea warfare in the Mediterranean was on a totally different scale in terms of technology, troop numbers, talent, and tactics. Even Chinese naval trade activities were still in their infant shoes - at the time Roman merchants used to sail regularly to India, Ceylon and occasionally even beyond, Chinese navigation was still firmly confined to faint activity in the China Sea.

But the most conspicuous point is:


6. Han China lacked strong enemies

There is one certain yardstick to measure success, be it individual success or military success of empires: Take a look at quality of the opponents one had to face.

The thing which strikes most about Chinese military history, not only about Han China, is that China, situated at the periphery of Eurasia, lacked enemies which could have put her to a more serious test - for the simple reason that Eastern Asia did not provide them. The only enemy of caliber was the nomadic mounted archer at its northern frontier, in the east the Japanese did not became active until the 16th century, in the south were only wild Yue tribes of no military standing, and in the west the natural barrier of the Himalaya.

Compare that to the Mediterranean and the Near East which was home to a multitude of high cultures! Carthage, Macedonia, the Seleucids, Ptolemaic Egypt, Persia, Celts, Germans, Numidians, Sarmatians - the list of Roman enemies reads like a who is who of ancient powers. Rome had to adapt to warfare against sea empires, land empires, city-states, nomads, half sedentary nomads - Rome had to face a multitude of potent powers and even superpowers and that was something which Han China at the Eurasian periphery never had to do.[/b]
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Reply
#20
Quote:Hmm, another nationalist Han v. Rome argument (they're all over the web.) Did you once post as Anthrophobia on simaqianstudio.com?

Virgil, I am pissed. There are people out there ten times more nationalistic than I can dream of, and you decided to put my name out there behind my back? At least I know something about BOTH sides. Am I the one that said that Rome's infantry can woop Han infantry? Yes. Am I the one that told p3t3r1 in CHF that he should have a more balanced view instead of going all out on one side? Yes. End of story. But I could go on a role about a whole load of inaccuracies of the Han army people stated here if you WANT me to be "nationalistic". Heck, I could write an essay about the wrong impressions of Han armies here, but I don't call other people nationalistic. I just don't agree with them.
Rick Lee
Reply
#21
Guys,

lets keep things civil here. This is an interesting discussion IMO and it would be a shame to end it in a fight.

Virgil recieved an PM for his remark so onto the discussion.
gr,
Jeroen Pelgrom
Rules for Posting

I would rather have fire storms of atmospheres than this cruel descent from a thousand years of dreams.
Reply
#22
Peter, let us know how your essay and presentation went.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#23
Quote: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).

Quote:Interesting, can you cite your source?

I'm not sure where he got his information but I've seen televised demonstrations of a Roman Scorpion being fired into Legionary armor and the most it did was bounce off and land harmlessly on the ground.

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.

Quote: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.

Someone will have to see if the Han crossbow could even pierce the Roman Shield. If the Han's crossbow could not, then the Han might be in a bit of trouble. :wink:

Quote: Most likely the Hun crossbow men would have been out flanked by allied calvary and cut down.

Quote: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.

Ventidius showed us how to counter horse archers, in his campaign against Parthia he took a force of 11 legions, including a large number of slingers to defend against horse archery, for the Romans had learned that unsupported heavy infantry in the open were highly vulnerable. The Romans would have learned to support their infantry. You are also overlooking the fact that the Romans were a highly adaptive army. They devised tactics for any situation that came their way.

Quote: 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.

Quote: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.


Crassus WAS a horrible general, or are you not familiar with his attempt on taking out the slave rebellion led by Spartacus? =P

I think Antony's biggest problem was that he was far too confident when attempting to attack the Parthians because of his subordinate's (Ventidius) victory over the Parthians. But that's assuming he lost, details about the battle at the Parthian stronghold of Phraaspa are inconclusive, but one thing is for sure, Antony's return to Armenia because of lack of progress was met only with disease and further harassment from the Parthians.
[size=150:1io1x0l3]"Hail Caesar! We who are about to die Salute you!"[/size]

[size=100:1io1x0l3]- Gladiatorial Salute[/size]


[size=75:1io1x0l3]Dustin[/size]
Reply
#24
The writer of the paper seems to arrive at the conclusion that Han weapons were superior to Roman ones because the Chinese were free to slash away and the Romans had to rely on the inferior tactic of stabbing.

The Romans found the reverse to be true. Vegetius wrote:

"For those who strike with the edge have not only been beaten by the Romans quite easily, but they have even been laughed at."

Polybius wrote:

"Once the Gauls had rendered their swords useless by slashing at the spears, the Romans closed with them and rendered them helpless by denying them the room to slash with their swords; this stroke is unique to the Gauls, and their only one, because their swords have no points. The Romans, on the other hand, did not use slashing moves, but instead used their swords in a straight thrusting motion, using the sharp points which were very effective. Striking one blow after another at the chests and faces of the enemy, the Romans killed most of them."
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply
#25
Quote:The writer of the paper seems to arrive at the conclusion that Han weapons were superior to Roman ones because the Chinese were free to slash away and the Romans had to rely on the inferior tactic of stabbing.
I'm not so sure, The writer seems more of the opinion that the Romans would succumb under massed missile fire from a great distance.

Are their figures (ancient or modern reconstruction) of this Han crossbow? I mean rate of fire, maximum distance, penetrating power?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#26
Quote:Better quality weapons were also produced due to cast iron’s solidity and strength. Thus, unlike the Augustan legions, the Han Army was not limited to the short thrusting sword but can also manufacture a variety of different weapons like the ji, a thrusting and hooking halberd and its soldiers carries weapons that can slice through their opponents easier than their Roman counterparts
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply
#27
Quote:Are their figures (ancient or modern reconstruction) of this Han crossbow? I mean rate of fire, maximum distance, penetrating power?

There are no ACCURATE reconstructions as of far. However, ancient sources do say that the typical Han crossbow(6 dan, or 350 pounds) has a killing range of 260 meters more or less(I say "more or less" because the sources say that troops fire at 260 meters).

These crossbows surely packs more punch than the hand drawn medieval crossbow(about 150 pounds) thanks to the addition of the belt hook device, but it also surely lags way behind the medieval winched crossbow(some over 1000 pounds). Thus, the speed and power of the typical Han crossbow is between the medieval hand drawn and the medieval winched crossbow. Lighter han crossbows(5 dan and down) would have a stirrup in place, but heavier ones were drawn in such a way that the stirrup became more of a reliability.

As for stabbing vs cutting weapons, the truth is that stabbing weapons are good against infantry, while cutting weapons are good against cavalry. Because the Han dynasty's greatest enemy is the HxiongNu(nomadic cavalry), it would only be natural that the Han has a greater proportion of cutting weapons(I'm only talking about swords here though). Do not think that the HxiongNu are weak because they are nomads though. In truth, if I had to choose the strongest organization during this time, I would definitely pick the HxiongNu. They can lose battles, but it's almost impossible to conquer them because they have no cities to conquer. Each time they lost a battle they'll just pack their tents and move away, just so that they'll strike back when the main opposing army's gone. The Hxiong Nu may not have ways to produce high quality swords, yet the HxiongNu were able to attain technology from the surrounding sedentary civilizations through "trade"(I prefer to call it looting/taking instead). Much of the nomadic incursions in other civilizations were caused by pressure from the HxiongNu.

btw, here's a drama series on Han WuDi's campaigns against the HxiongNu. However, remember the armor/weapons management as well as tactics shown are EXTREMELY inaccurate so don't use this to base your judgement. It just gives those without a clue about how a Han army looks like a clue. The graphics are pretty bad too, compared to the Lord of the Rings, but then they do have the good excuse that they had to split the money over 57 episodes. It's in Chinese but luckily in this episode you don't need to know the language. It's just mindless charging all the way through.

http://www2.uswtv.com/movie/200510/1427.htm
Rick Lee
Reply
#28
There is a false assumption that the Roman gladius was primarily suited to stabbing. There have been several threads on RAT countering that argument.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#29
Well, yes it is possible that the Gladius can cut if the wielder wants to, but I see no reason why they should considering the sword length, its hardiness, and the fact that the wielder might as well have used a spatha, which is much better suited for such a job.
Rick Lee
Reply
#30
Quote:Peter, let us know how your essay and presentation went.

Just finished the presentation. The teacher said it was "well done"
and seems to be pleased. The class seems react quite well. Only problem is that when we finally got set up, only 45 minutes were left. According to the 15 minutes per person rule, the first person, a close friend of my, took 21 minutes and thus cut into the second person's time and therefore I only had 10 minutes left. Thus, I had to present another 5 minutes after school but alot of the class left before thay wanted to go home. I had maybe 10 or 11 audiances left from the 30. The essay I am not sure. I don't the teacher has read it yet. It really depends on the teacher's opinion I guess. Hopefully, he will see that I have good evidences to support my arguments and therefore perhaps ignore the fact that I might be a bit biased.

If I had more time, I would have done more research. I only had a total of two weeks to write up my essay. When combined with other school works, this wasn't too much time.

Interesting points mentioned here Eleatic Guest and First_Legionary. I wil do more research this weekend and see if I can find anything that contradict your statements.
----------------------------
Peter Li
History student
Reply


Forum Jump: