Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Dan Howard]

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.

There are enormous difficulties involved in producing long steel blades that are actually functional in battle. To claim that the Romans could all have been equipped with a spatha demonstrates a lack of metallurgical understanding.

All gladius typologies are perfectly capable of slashing, which is immediately evident upon handling them.

IIRC it was Livy who expressed the horror of the Greeks at all the severed limbs the Romans left strewn on a Macedonian battlefield.

According to Angelo (Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, p. 108), the Romans made frequent use of the hamstring cut.

According to Michael Simkins there is ample evidence for skulls that have been cloven by gladii.

Polybius [book XVIII] specifically comments on the Romans making use of both thrusts AND cuts (emphasis mine).
"However, according to the Roman methods of fighting each man makes his movements individually: not only does he defend his body with his long shield, constantly moving it to meet a threatened blow, but he uses his sword for both cutting and for thrusting.

[Anthrophobia]

There are enormous difficulties involved in producing long steel blades that are actually functional in battle. To claim that the Romans could all have been equipped with a spatha demonstrates a lack of metallurgical understanding.

Never said that. I only stated that they could have given spathas where the situation required cutting more than thrusting. I don't see Roman cavalry using the gladius, do I?

As for gladius being able to cut, I have already said that they could. So could the Han "jian" be used to cut as well as thrust, but compared to the Han "dao"? A dao is much more suited for cutting, just as a jian is much more suited for thrusting. It's the same relationship with the spatha and the gladius.

Besides, the Polybius example given is of the early Spanish gladius. The gladius evolved several times after that period.

[Dan Howard]

Never said that. I only stated that they could have given spathas where the situation required cutting more than thrusting. I don't see Roman cavalry using the gladius, do I?

Gladii are not used by cavalry because they are too short for mounted combat, not because they are unsuited for slashing. The best cutting blade in the world is useless if it can't reach the opponent.

Besides, the Polybius example given is of the early Spanish gladius. The gladius evolved several times after that period.

So which typology in your opinion is unsuited for slashing? Have you personally handled this typology? Why do you think it is unsuitable for slashing?

[Eleatic Guest]

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).

What is a belt hook device, when was it introduced and how widespread was it?

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.

Each time they lose, they will get under strong pressure from other neighbouring tribes, because to hassle and attack the weakened is the iron law of the steppe. That consideration alone has kept nomads warfare usually far more cautious than the mental image of the unconditionally wild nomadic onslaught might have conveyed.

Nomadic steppe warfare always had to calculate with the intrinsic weakness of having no safe havens (fortified towns) to which one can fall back in case of defeat and wait out the worst from a favourable defensive position. Therefore, a defeat on the steppe should not be equated easily with a defeat in urbanized societies. A defeat on the steppe endangered the basis of life, that is the pastures, and the life of ones family in a much more immediate way than it was possible in sedentary societies.

Your approach is a bit one-dimensional because you only view the strategical situation of the nomads vis-a-vis the sedentary Han, but you leave out the shift of power balance vis-a-vis other nomads, that is whats going on in the back of a nomad tribe in case of defeat.

Overall, I dont think that the XiongNu were such super-formidable enemies of the Han - what is sometimes portraited in order to upgrade the performance of the Han armies in view of the almost complete lack of other worthy enemies the Han China had to face in their history - the XiongNu certainly must have felt their own strategical constraints heavily.

I would not place them in terms of military capability over the Sarmatian tribes (in view of the military innovationess even less - consider the Sarmation contribution to the development of the cataphracts), who operated in a similarly large area west, north and east of the Black Sea and were numerically therefore probably in the same bracket. But, unlike in case of the Han, the Sarmatians were only one major enemy Rome was busy with. If you go by the quality and number of foes both empires fended off successfully in their time, I dont think it is even a contest and I dont think I am guilty of stretching things here.

[Anthrophobia]

Gladii are not used by cavalry because they are too short for mounted combat, not because they are unsuited for slashing. The best cutting blade in the world is useless if it can't reach the opponent.

It's exactly because of its shortness that it is idea for thrusting instead of slashing. When in the typical battle where people are crowded shoulder to shoulder a thrust is easier achieved than a cut. Cutting situations would be found in cavalry, in which the battle wouldn't be as...compact.

So which typology in your opinion is unsuited for slashing? Have you personally handled this typology? Why do you think it is unsuitable for slashing?

Crowded close combat, where you almost CAN'T slash. Thrusts work better, and it's more lethal as well in this case.

What is a belt hook device, when was it introduced and how widespread was it?

I believe that it is introduced during the Warring States. This device allows the wearer to draw the crossbow lying down, which allows the crossbowman to draw a heavier poundage rather than drawing the crossbow standing up. Thus, it sacrifices speed for penetration power.

[Anthrophobia]

Each time they lose, they will get under strong pressure from other neighbouring tribes, because to hassle and attack the weakened is the iron law of the steppe. That consideration alone has kept nomads warfare usually far more cautious than the mental image of the unconditionally wild nomadic onslaught might have conveyed.

Nomadic steppe warfare always had to calculate with the intrinsic weakness of having no safe havens (fortified towns) to which one can fall back in case of defeat and wait out the worst from a favourable defensive position. Therefore, a defeat on the steppe should not be equated easily with a defeat in urbanized societies. A defeat on the steppe endangered the basis of life, that is the pastures, and the life of ones family in a much more immediate way than it was possible in sedentary societies.

Your approach is a bit one-dimensional because you only view the strategical situation of the nomads vis-a-vis the sedentary Han, but you leave out the shift of power balance vis-a-vis other nomads, that is whats going on in the back of a nomad tribe in case of defeat.

Overall, I dont think that the XiongNu were such super-formidable enemies of the Han - what is sometimes portraited in order to upgrade the performance of the Han armies in view of the almost complete lack of other worthy enemies the Han China had to face in their history - the XiongNu certainly must have felt their own strategical constraints heavily.

I would not place them in terms of military capability over the Sarmatian tribes (in view of the military innovationess even less - consider the Sarmation contribution to the development of the cataphracts), who operated in a similarly large area west, north and east of the Black Sea and were numerically therefore probably in the same bracket. But, unlike in case of the Han, the Sarmatians were only one major enemy Rome was busy with. If you go by the quality and number of foes both empires fended off successfully in their time, I dont think it is even a contest and I dont think I am guilty of stretching things here.

Look here, I'm trying to guide the discussion into a nonobjective comparison here. There is no need to compare which one is "better". I believe we have agreed that to say that the Han is superior is nationalistic. By logic the same then would be true when people say that Rome is militarily superior.

As for the Xiongnu, the ShiJi have already seen that the XiongNu's manueverability(not just the army, but the whole population) is a threat to all sedentary civilizations. We will never know for sure what the XiongNu is thinking because they don't keep much recorded history, but the fact that a most military defeats means nothing but a loss of men/horses means that their defeats pale in comparison to sedentary defeats. They do not have an economy that can become strained due to an defeat, and they do not have a land that can be pillaged. Women can herd sheep despite that their husband is dead, while for sedentary sociities and their sexist attitudes a family without a man = death. Thus, a defeat by the XiongNu empire hurts it a lot less than other sedentary civilizations. A nomad can move to another land without any economical strain. A farmer or city dweller cannot.

As for the Han not having formidable enemies... what's that all about? Keep in mind that the Han is a dynasty of an empire, while Rome is an empire(with many dynasties). If Rome where still intact today, you would probably consider Rome's invasion of Carthage just Rome vs Rome. China, however, stayed intact, so it's understandable that one would consider Han vs XiangYu or Qin vs Chu as China vs China, even though it is far from the case. Each state of the Warring States had their own style of warfare, and the most powerful state changed over the yrs due to constant war that many call China's military industrial revolution. Each war consists of battles that drained the population enough to cause starvation. By your reasoning Han barely had any enemies due to that its entire boundary is within present day China. The few enemies outside present day China such as the XiongNu, Vietnam and Korea were formidable as well. XiongNu for their speed, Vietnam for their guerilla tactics, and Korea for their rivaling technology. And then there's the Oasis kingdoms, in which each state has a different way of warfare. Thus, it is only reasonable to say that the Han dynasty had to deal with just as many enemies as any 400 yr period of Rome.

[Virilis]

IIRC it was Livy who expressed the horror of the Greeks at all the severed limbs the Romans left strewn on a Macedonian battlefield.

This has always puzzled me. I know that the macedonians didn`t use the cavalry as effectively as in the times of Alexander anymore, but how about the swords? How could the macedonians be horrified by the cutting capabilities of the roman swords? Didn`t they have KOPIS anymore (which is a cutting weapon par excellence)? Also the longer bladed Xiphos could have been also a very efficient cutting weapon....

Perhaps this is again a question of culture, Rome`s relentless style of making war. Perhaps the macedonians were horrified by the brutality of roman battle tactics in general, mutilating bodies etc.?

[Dan Howard]

It's exactly because of its shortness that it is idea for thrusting instead of slashing. When in the typical battle where people are crowded shoulder to shoulder a thrust is easier achieved than a cut. Cutting situations would be found in cavalry, in which the battle wouldn't be as...compact.

Except that the Romans kept a far more open formation than earlier phalanx armies. The whole point of this is to give each soldier more room to manoeuvre (e.g. swing a sword).

[Dan Howard]

Look here, I'm trying to guide the discussion into a nonobjective comparison here. There is no need to compare which one is "better". I believe we have agreed that to say that the Han is superior is nationalistic. By logic the same then would be true when people say that Rome is militarily superior.

It is nationalistic to claim that the Han is superior when it is demonstrably not. It isn't nationalistic to make a claim about a particular aspect of a culture if the facts back up that claim.

but the fact that a most military defeats means nothing but a loss of men/horses means that their defeats pale in comparison to sedentary defeats. They do not have an economy that can become strained due to an defeat, and they do not have a land that can be pillaged.

So why did Rome keep coming back dispite huge defeats all through her history? There is no way that a nomadic culture could survive even a single one of the larger defeats the Romans suffered. As already stated, rival clans would swallow them up.

[Tarbicus]

Except that the Romans kept a far more open formation than earlier phalanx armies. The whole point of this is to give each soldier more room to manoeuvre (e.g. swing a sword).

There's a question mark over the width for each soldier in formation. Considering the size of a scutum, three feet per legionary isn't that much room if that's the measurement you accept. It also depends on what period of Roman history you're talking about, most likely.

[Dan Howard]

Polybius said three feet but in the same passage he said that each legionary had to face two men in the front rank of a phalanx formation so he must have had twice as much space as a hoplite. This doesn't mean that they couldn't close ranks and lock shields when necessary, but it wasn't their normal formation.

Here is the full passage.
"However, according to the Roman methods of fighting each man makes his movements individually: not only does he defend his body with his long shield, constantly moving it to meet a threatened blow, but he uses his sword for both cutting and for thrusting. Obviously, these tactics require a more open order and an interval between the men, and in practice each soldier needs be at least three feet from those in the same rank and from those in front of and behind him if he is to perfom his function efficiently. The result of these dispositions is that each Roman soldier has to face two men in the front rank of the phalanx, and so has to encouter and fight against ten spear points."

[Tarbicus]

each soldier needs be at least three feet from those in the same rank

Right, thanks Dan. So it is six feet plus the width of the soldier. Possibly an 8 foot frontage including gaps to the men either side, and not a total of three feet which is for a phalanx. Given room was needed for the men either side, I make that a space of 5 feet (1.5' + 2' + 1.5') per individual for them to move in, giving half of the space either side for his comrades.

From another translation: [url:2jqtt06c]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html[/url]
"Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect."

[Anthrophobia]

It is nationalistic to claim that the Han is superior when it is demonstrably not. It isn't nationalistic to make a claim about a particular aspect of a culture if the facts back up that claim.

Almost all the facts given were wrong here. Facts that are wrong aren't facts. What makes you so sure that one is "demonstrably" superior to the other? Do you know both sides of the spectrum equally well?

[Anthrophobia]

So why did Rome keep coming back dispite huge defeats all through her history? There is no way that a nomadic culture could survive even a single one of the larger defeats the Romans suffered. As already stated, rival clans would swallow them up.

Coming back from huge defeats isn't something that's just special to Rome. Any successful country came back from huge defeats. The XiongNu of course never suffered "huge" defeats in the first place(because of their manueverability, if anything seems wrong, just RUN AWAY!), that is until the time of WuDi(as a result that WuDi CHEATED by secretely preparing over a GENERATION for war, as well as the luck to have a line of genius generals while the XiongNu had so-so generals). The Han suffered defeats up to 300,000 men and more as well, and Chinese dynasties before them were basically a tug of war, I'm stronger one day, and your stronger the next(right after I suffered a defeat of several hundred thousand men which in short absolutely ruined the economy). It's nothing special. If you can't come back despite a huge defeat, we call that country "exctinct", or that country would lack in power so much that no one would know about it. My theory of the reason why countries can come back from a major defeat is that this country has a stronger economy than its opposing country. Thus it can resupply its manpower, weapons, food supply, and armor faster than the opposing side. Rome against Carthage is a perfect example of this, for it was Rome who had the better economic edge. The Qin vs other Warring States is also a brilliant example, for the Qin's economy is much more geards toward war than the other states(your either a smith, a soldier, or a farmer. Jobs such as acting is out of the question).

Except that the Romans kept a far more open formation than earlier phalanx armies. The whole point of this is to give each soldier more room to manoeuvre (e.g. swing a sword).

That depends on the situation. Even with enough room to swing, a swing needs to have force applied to it, as that is its only advantage over thrusting. Such a short sword is not suited for this occasion(short=less swinging force) against a similar army armed with gladius-like weapons. Can the soldier cut? Of course, if his opponent gives an opening that requires it. But like what I previously stated, a thrust is much more efficient for the gladius rather than a cut, as it is easier to target important organs/weak spots in the armor.
Again, as I said, Polybius lived in the time of the Roman Republic. It is no question that the Roman empire is much more powerful than the Roman Republic, especially after Marius' reforms. Thus, unless you are talking about the Roman Republic, leave poor Polybius alone .

[floofthegoof]

It isn't very often in history that cultures clash in the manner we are describing. This is a case where there is nothing similar in the needs of the military, nor the motivation to fight. Any speculation on the more refined system can only be of the wildest sort, and probably not very valueable in an education sense.

The Romans and the Han were succesful in their environments. Should some great cataclysm occur to thrust them together suddenly, who survives and who doesn't might very well come down to one bad decision by one commander. Rome and Carthage had some common cultural ancestry and lived in a similar environment being neighbors and all, so I'm not sure if this is the best analogy for what might happen between the Han and Romans. After Cannae, there was nothing to stop Hannibal from capturing Rome, he relented and ultimately his civilaization was destroyed. That's all it takes!

For all those massed crossbows of the Han, the one arrow that hits the right person, or not, could decide everything. That said, if this technology were to cause a massive Roman defeat, it would have to be capitalized on very quickly. I do doubt that the Romans would have long term trouble against a peasant levy of any sort. In the Roman system, men fought either to protect their own property or to aquire new property. This is a powerful motivation. Each individual soldier, not just the emporer, is both hungry for conquest and has much to defend. What are the Han peasants fighting for? Their next ration of rice? What sort of property were they allowed to own? Since I am largely ignorant of the Han system, this would be my main question. Why does the Han soldier fight?