Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Magnus]

However, it also doesn't take much room to swing a 20 inch or shorter blade. The optimum room prescribed to legionary formations is more than enough. The idea of legionarys packed shoulder to shoulder only able to stab is silly.

"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."


I disagree entirely. The POINT of a sword determines it's suitability for thrusting, and thrusting vs armoured and unarmoured opponents., as does straight vs curved. It has little to do with with it's length. The reason the gladius is shorter is because there is limited room based on Roman tactics, however this does not hamper it's ability to be used in any way. If the Romans just stabbed, and stabbed only they'd probably use pointy pieces of iron rod (like javelin shafts) or pointed sticks with hardened ends. Why bother putting cutting edges on them? Seems like a lot of extra work.

The gladius is a cleaver. It's a 2 inch (average) wide blade by 18 - 20 inches long (average). Do you have any idea the amount of cutting force that blade can generate? The history channel demonstrated that a gladius is fully capable of severing a goat's neck..imagine an arm.

Try it out...make a wooden waster of a gladius or a needlefelt one...get a couple buds and try it out. You'll see cutting or stabbing it works just fine in both roles.

[Magnus]

"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."

So a thrust doesn't need to have force applied to it either? Again, I totally disagree with this statement. Even a light amount of force in a swing which creates a cutting action (not a chop..i'll get to that later) would be enough to split the skin and create a deep wound. Deep wound = pretty big trouble for the person cut. Blood loss is a pretty serious factor in combat.

Consider a lack of circular motion in a swing intent on creating a slash, and rather it's more of a choping motion. On bare skin it's still going to break the skin and bite pretty deep, assuming the edge is sharp. Chopping action on armoured areas is rather pointless.

"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. "

So the Han were armoured in a similar fashion as the romans? With gladius-like weapons? I thought they had longer slashing weapons? Also, short does NOT equal less power in this case. The dimensions of the gladius allow the user an amazing amount of power and kinetic energy which makes your argument irrelevant.

If the opponent is unarmoured....then targeting weak points or organs becomes pretty easy regardless of attack type.


And i'd love to see how well a gladius can penetrate segmented armour on a moving opponent. But this is a digression from the main topic of Han vs Roman...we're getting into civil wars here and that's a whole other topic on it's own. [/i]

[Anthrophobia]

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?

The western Han had a conscript army, while the Eastern Han had a professional army. The Western Han required that every capable male train in fighting throughout their life until they are too old to. Thus, each day they would use "8 hourse farming and two hours trainning". It is also required that they choose a couple of months during the year to undergo training and nothing else. When they are required on the field, they would undergo more specialized trainning as suited to their background for 1 or 2 years depending on the circumstances. A good soldier can easily be promoted to a general if he plays his cards right, so that is probably their motivation. There are not many records on Han training, so we can only look to past dynasties for an idea of what it was like. The previous dynasty to the Han would be the Qin. The Qin dynasty rewards soldiers for the number of enemies they killed. Killing one enemy means that your entire family can get some tax breaks. Killing more enemies can get the soldier to have free land or to get him promoted to the point where he can actually be a general. By the time of the Eastern Han, these training for the entire male population is not required. Volunteers, or mercenaries, whichever you choose, would be used to fight for the dynasty. There are also soldiers who are in the military because they received the death sentence. However, to do well on the battlefield means that they will recieve an imperial pardon for their crimes(this also applies to the Western Han). But overall, in BOTH the Han and Rome, the soldier fights for the general. The soldier's loyalty to the general is of ultimate importance in order for the army to function right.

[Tarbicus]

But overall, in BOTH the Han and Rome, the soldier fights for the general. The soldier's loyalty to the general is of ultimate importance in order for the army to function right.

Not so during the period the essay's about. Loyalty was sworn to the Emperor.

[Anthrophobia]

I disagree entirely. The POINT of a sword determines it's suitability for thrusting, and thrusting vs armoured and unarmoured opponents., as does straight vs curved. It has little to do with with it's length. The reason the gladius is shorter is because there is limited room based on Roman tactics, however this does not hamper it's ability to be used in any way. If the Romans just stabbed, and stabbed only they'd probably use pointy pieces of iron rod (like javelin shafts) or pointed sticks with hardened ends. Why bother putting cutting edges on them? Seems like a lot of extra work.

The gladius is a cleaver. It's a 2 inch (average) wide blade by 18 - 20 inches long (average). Do you have any idea the amount of cutting force that blade can generate? The history channel demonstrated that a gladius is fully capable of severing a goat's neck..imagine an arm.

Try it out...make a wooden waster of a gladius or a needlefelt one...get a couple buds and try it out. You'll see cutting or stabbing it works just fine in both roles.

That's the same with the Han jian. It is designed to stab but it can cut as well, but to say that it can do both equally well is absurb, since if so it wouldn't be replaced by the dao. Thus it would be double standard to think so of the gladius while not giving the jian the same credit. The cutting force by the gladius generates 100 ft pounds and requires 250 ft pounds of energy to cut through wrought iron. However, a weapon made for cutting such as the dao generates 150 ft pounds of force due to that it is longer and thus have more force applied to it. Can a gladius cut through a goats neck? My kitchen knife can cut through a goats neck if enough force is applied to it, no problem. Any good sword can cut through flesh and even bone depending on the force applied by the user. But in a real fight infantry against infantry, it is easier to stab. Roman sources admitted this as they fought the celts who swinged their swords while the Romans thrusted their gladius. It is common sense which one was more effective.

So a thrust doesn't need to have force applied to it either? Again, I totally disagree with this statement. Even a light amount of force in a swing which creates a cutting action (not a chop..i'll get to that later) would be enough to split the skin and create a deep wound. Deep wound = pretty big trouble for the person cut. Blood loss is a pretty serious factor in combat.

A thrust gives less force but this type of attack is much quicker, allowing the user to attack his opponent more times than one who cuts. A cut does not give as deep a wound as a thrust. A nastier wound, yes, but a thrust would already be enough to go from one side of the stomach to the other side(people usually wouldn't want to do this or else it would be incredibly hard to yank the sword out).

So the Han were armoured in a similar fashion as the romans? With gladius-like weapons? I thought they had longer slashing weapons? Also, short does NOT equal less power in this case. The dimensions of the gladius allow the user an amazing amount of power and kinetic energy which makes your argument irrelevant.

No the Han was not armored in a similar fashion, but yes, the Han do have gladius-like weapons, they are called the jian, which very in length depending on the situation required of it. The jian is not designed as a slashing weapon, but a thrusting weapon, just like the Roman gladius. A shorter sword do indeed equal less power as given by the example above. 100 ft pound energy for the gladius and 150 ft pound energy for the dao, and that would also be the likely energy for the spatha as well. If a shorter sword can produce the same amt of energy as a longer sword in a cutting situation, the dao for Han infantry would be a lot shorter than they were, nor would the dao even replace the jian as cavalry became more and more of a threat.

[Virgil]

Check your PM.

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)...

No coming back from defeat isn't unique to Rome, but the manner in which Rome did so and it's stubborn refusal to make terms with the enemy during the years of the Republic when all seemed lost are rather unique. Certainly unique enough to have been mentioned and commented on by historians and writers.

Xiong Nu may have never suffered 'huge' defeats, then again those same 'strengths' that allowed them to melt away insured that they didn't achieve anything even remotely approachable to the civilization of the Han, though that's a different issue.

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...

In the first Punic War and probably the second, it can be strongly argued that Carthage was the more wealthy and certainly the more commercial state of the two. In fact trade was arguably it's reason for existence.

While a strong economy may be important in rising from defeat it's only part of the equation and less important in an heavily agriculturally based economy than a more developed one.

"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."

Trust me, all combat is situational. Today that's reflected in the US Army concept of METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Troops available, Terrain and Time), one which any experienced Roman (and Han) commander would recognize intuitively. It's also a strong argument for the gladius since it carries both the capacity for thrusting and slashing. I think others have clarified other portions of the gladius argument.

[John M McDermott]

Here are quotes from Vegetius and Polybius. I lean towards the emphasis on thrusting, which was the basis for the Armatura

"The ancients (as we find in their writings) trained their recruits in this manner. They made round wickerwork shields, twice as heavy as those of service weight, and gave their recruits wooden staves instead of swords, and these again were of double weight. With these they were made to practise at the stakes both morning and afternoon. The employment of stakes is of the greatest benefit both to soldiers and to gladiators. No man has ever distinguished himself as invincible in armed combat, either in the arena or in the Campus, who has not carefully trained and instructed at the stakes.

"A stake was planted in the ground by each recruit, in such a manner that it projected six feet in height and could not sway. Against this stake the recruit practised with his wickerwork shield and wooden stave, just as if he were fighting a real enemy. Sometimes he aimed as against the head or the face, sometimes he threatened from the flanks, sometimes he endeavoured to strike down the knees and the legs. He gave ground, he attacked, he assaulted, and he assailed the stake with all the skill and energy required in actual fighting, just as if it were a real enemy; and in this exercise care was taken to see that the recruit did not rush forward so rashly to inflict a wound as to lay himself open to a counterstroke from any quarter. Furthermore, they learned to strike, not with the edge, but with the point. For those who strike with the edge have not only been beaten by the Romans quite easily, but they have even been laughed at.

"The recruit should be instructed in that system of arms drill which is called armatura and is carried on by drill-masters. It is still partly kept up. For it is clear that even today those trained in the armatura are superior to the rest in all encounters. From this it should be realized how much better a trained soldier is than an untrained one. Those who have any experience of the armatura at all outstrip the remainder of their comrades in the art of fighting. With our ancestors so strict was the attention paid to training, that weapon training instructors received double rations, and soldiers who failed to reach an adequate standard in those exercises were compelled to receive their rations in barley instead of in wheat. The wheat ration was not restored to them until they had demonstrated by practical tests, in the presence of the praefectus legionis, the tribunes or the senior officers, that they were proficient in every branch of their military studies." -Vegetius


Polybius, 2.33 (battle against Insubrian Gauls)
"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."

"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 to 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." [Polybius XVIII]

[Anthrophobia]

No coming back from defeat isn't unique to Rome, but the manner in which Rome did so and it's stubborn refusal to make terms with the enemy during the years of the Republic when all seemed lost are rather unique. Certainly unique enough to have been mentioned and commented on by historians and writers.

The Han in the same manner had the same occurrence with XiangYu of the Chu dynasty. The Han dynasty's first battle with XiangYu ended pathetically. Han elite cavalry was defeated by a mob of quickly assembled soldiers out of desperation. In fact, XiangYu won WAY more battles than he lost, but in the end he lost the war. Don't ask me how it happened, I don't know how. Right now I'm trying to find a reason on how XiangYu won every battle he went into but lost the war. It's MINDBOGGLING.

Xiong Nu may have never suffered 'huge' defeats, then again those same 'strengths' that allowed them to melt away insured that they didn't achieve anything even remotely approachable to the civilization of the Han, though that's a different issue.

Yes, the XiongNu lacked behind sedentary civilizations such as Rome/Han in many parts, as do all nomadic civilizations. I was merely comparing the amount of power projected by the XiongNu. Their influence militarily was indeed great as their pressure to other civilizations caused these very civilizations to attack both Rome and Han.

[floofthegoof]

But overall, in BOTH the Han and Rome, the soldier fights for the general. The soldier's loyalty to the general is of ultimate importance in order for the army to function right.

If the soldier respects and likes the general he will fight for him, however a soldier will fight for himself most determinedly. One thing that the Romans did quite well for an ancient society was align the interests of the state with that of the citizen. A citizen of Rome was not so much a servant to Rome but more of a part owner. Eastern regimes in the past seem to be rather top-heavy in their class structure. All of the wealth and power going to a very few people.

A peasant fighting for some tax relief might kill an enemy to gain that, but why go further? Why not just hang back and watch other people gain the victory. If your side loses run and go home. Bow to a new emporer and forget to tell him that you killed a man.

Conversely, Roman citizens had much more at stake in winning and losing battles. A winning campaign could elevate a man to a whole new lifestyle. A losing one could ruin him financially. Not to mention that by performing poorly in battle could get your considerable amount of property revoked.

[Tarbicus]

Not to mention that by performing poorly in battle could get your considerable amount of property revoked.

Really? Where did you read that, and how did it operate? Are you talking about senior officers or the legionary?

[Anthrophobia]

If the soldier respects and likes the general he will fight for him, however a soldier will fight for himself most determinedly. One thing that the Romans did quite well for an ancient society was align the interests of the state with that of the citizen. A citizen of Rome was not so much a servant to Rome but more of a part owner. Eastern regimes in the past seem to be rather top-heavy in their class structure. All of the wealth and power going to a very few people.

A peasant fighting for some tax relief might kill an enemy to gain that, but why go further? Why not just hang back and watch other people gain the victory. If your side loses run and go home. Bow to a new emporer and forget to tell him that you killed a man.

Conversely, Roman citizens had much more at stake in winning and losing battles. A winning campaign could elevate a man to a whole new lifestyle. A losing one could ruin him financially. Not to mention that by performing poorly in battle could get your considerable amount of property revoked.

That is an extremely negative stereotype of Eastern countries. How is a peasant in China any different than a farmer in Rome. I don't even know why people call them "peasants", when they are the same with everybody else. The only difference is that they might be slightly better off due to farming technology. Fact is, in most sedentary societies before the industrail revolution, all of the wealth and power DO go to the few. Even today this is somewhat true(although to a lesser degree), else "communism" wouldn't have such a bad connotation, would it? Personally I think the soldier would fight for his family much more than he fought for himself. If I fought just for myself, forget about rewards, I'm sneaking away. My limbs being intact is much more important to me than land. But that's just personal opinion. It would probably be different for each person.

And as I said, rewards go beyond just tax relief but also promotion as well as land. I read somewhere about the exact type of rewards for the exact number of enemies killed but now I can't find it. I will paste it in when I do find it though. The list goes pretty long, and I only remembered the first part. Keep in mind that the Qin and the Han probably didn't have the same reward system(the Han may not even reward soldiers for the number of enemies killed, since it is so hard to have an accurate figure for that, but they do get rewarded if their achievements are noted by the captains), but chances are it could be similar. As an example both HuoQuBin and WeQing came from the peasant stock(WeiQing was basically a stableboy), while WeiQing's sister(also a peasant) became the empress after WeiQing was able to prove himself extremely useful.

Trust me, all combat is situational. Today that's reflected in the US Army concept of METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Troops available, Terrain and Time), one which any experienced Roman (and Han) commander would recognize intuitively. It's also a strong argument for the gladius since it carries both the capacity for thrusting and slashing. I think others have clarified other portions of the gladius argument.

I think everybody can agree on that. But I stand by the case that usually it would be better to thrust with a gladius rather than slash, just like the jian or the spear. To go even farther and more extreme, you could club someone with a crossbow if the situation is right as well, but normally you just shoot the guy.

In the first Punic War and probably the second, it can be strongly argued that Carthage was the more wealthy and certainly the more commercial state of the two. In fact trade was arguably it's reason for existence.

While a strong economy may be important in rising from defeat it's only part of the equation and less important in an heavily agriculturally based economy than a more developed one.

Yet the Roman economy is much more geard towards war than Carthage was. When the population of the capital cities reached only in the high hundred thousands, an army of 80,000 - 100,000 is no simple feat, yet Rome repeatedly used armies of these size. Carthage only did this once with Hannibal's expedition, but its armies were much smaller later down the road. This is much similar to Qin economy, in which its economy, although smaller altogether, is much more geared towards war, which made it able to defeat all other states.

[floofthegoof]

Not to mention that by performing poorly in battle could get your considerable amount of property revoked.

Really? Where did you read that, and how did it operate? Are you talking about senior officers or the legionary?

I'm going from memory here, AND its republican times not empire, but I believe the survivors of Cannae were banned from Italian soil. It was only much later, once things were going well again, that they were pardoned. I can't remember the exact reasoning for the pardon.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Han in the same manner had the same occurrence with XiangYu of the Chu dynasty. The Han dynasty's first battle with XiangYu ended pathetically. Han elite cavalry was defeated by a mob of quickly assembled soldiers out of desperation. In fact, XiangYu won WAY more battles than he lost, but in the end he lost the war. Don't ask me how it happened, I don't know how. Right now I'm trying to find a reason on how XiangYu won every battle he went into but lost the war. It's MINDBOGGLING.

Why? Take Phyrros, or Hannibal. Both won their battles but still lost the war. Their enemies could sustain much more losses in defeat than either winner could take in winning. Hence the phrase 'Phyrric victory'. Who was it again that said wars were not about winning battles, but logistics?

[Magnus]

"That's the same with the Han jian. It is designed to stab but it can cut as well, but to say that it can do both equally well is absurb"

Absurd? It's proven, and undisputed that the gladius can inflict massive damage in both attack types. What is so absurd about that? Blade characteristics in this case have little bearing on what makes the stab or cut effective. Situation and enemy armour are what dictate the success here. Why can't you see that point? Which was in fact, the original point of contention. You seem to think that it's a rare occurence for the gladius to be used in a cutting action. Which is wrong.

"The cutting force by the gladius generates 100 ft pounds and requires 250 ft pounds of energy to cut through wrought iron. However, a weapon made for cutting such as the dao generates 150 ft pounds of force due to that it is longer and thus have more force applied to it. "

Good heavens where did that come from? I never contended the gladius was better than the jian at cutting. My point was that it was used for cutting, and it worked pretty darn well at it. The katana is used primarily for cutting, but it can also stab, and stab very well. Also, where are you getting these stats from out of curiousity?


"Can a gladius cut through a goats neck? My kitchen knife can cut through a goats neck if enough force is applied to it, no problem."

You have a kitchen knife that will cut through bone? Come on....what are you using for a kitchen knife...hahaha!

"But in a real fight infantry against infantry, it is easier to stab. Roman sources admitted this as they fought the celts who swinged their swords while the Romans thrusted their gladius. It is common sense which one was more effective."

Hold on here...people have quoted direct sources in this very thread that say cutting was used as well. Not as much, and of course it probably wasn't...although we'll never really know this. But, common sense should dictate that given the course of a battle, you use what works, be it stab, cut, or a punch to the face with the pommel. In which case cutting as well as stabbing both got the job done. But you can't sit there and say one was better than the other in a given situation when we don't have specific enough references, and the ones we do have say both were used!

"A thrust gives less force but this type of attack is much quicker, allowing the user to attack his opponent more times than one who cuts. A cut does not give as deep a wound as a thrust. A nastier wound, yes, but a thrust would already be enough to go from one side of the stomach to the other side(people usually wouldn't want to do this or else it would be incredibly hard to yank the sword out). "

In a sense i agree with you...however there is one serious fault with this paragraph. There are no parameters in which I can say "Well this can be done because of "X", or it can't because person "Y" was wearing type "B" armour." Sure, I could stick a gladius through a person. I could also decapitate them with a cut from it. My point is that unless you give me a specific instance outlining all the details regarding enemy armour, battle conditions and what not, it makes it really difficult to debate. To make massive generalizations is futile. A cut horizontally across the abodomen that penetrates through the muscle wall usually results in the person's entrails spilled out on the ground. Let's see that happen with a thrust. But what if that person was wearing maille? See my point?


"No the Han was not armored in a similar fashion"

What did they wear for armour? Because if it wasn't maille or plate, and they're up against the roman army...they're in some serious bantha poo-doo, especially given the use of combined arms in the form of roman auxiliaries as missile and cavalry troops.

"A shorter sword do indeed equal less power as given by the example above."

What's the metalurgical composition of each weapon? What era...? Weight is a contributing factor to power...I'd like to see a comparison.

From wikipedia on the Jian:

"Historical one-handed versions have blades varying from 0.45 to 0.8 meter (17.7 to 31.5 inches) in length. The weight of an average sword of 0.7 meter (28 inch) blade-length would be in a range of approximately 700 to 900 g (1.5 to 2 pounds)."

Gladii were around 1-1.5 lbs, if i'm not mistaken. But there are variances on historical finds of both weapons.

"If a shorter sword can produce the same amt of energy as a longer sword in a cutting situation, the dao for Han infantry would be a lot shorter than they were, nor would the dao even replace the jian as cavalry became more and more of a threat."

Interesting...looks to me like the Dao wasn't made for slashing at all. Remember the "chopping" motion i was talking about?

from wiki:

"Originally less common as a military weapon than the jian - the straight, double-edged blade of China - the dao became popular with cavalry during the Han dynasty due to its sturdiness and superiority as a chopping weapon. Soon after dao began to be issued to infantry, beginning the replacement of the jian as a standard-issue weapon."

Any truth to this? If so...chopping is a far different cry from a slashing type weapon. Chopping uses the sheer weight and downwards pressure to penetrate it's target. Slashing relies on the cutting edge and trajectory to inflict damage. Waaaay different.

Picture of a dao: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_saber.jpg
Picture of the jian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jian.jpg


And praise be to Tarbicus for saying this:

[size=150:1jynlp26]"all combat is situational. Today that's reflected in the US Army concept of METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Troops available, Terrain and Time), one which any experienced Roman (and Han) commander would recognize intuitively. It's also a strong argument for the gladius since it carries both the capacity for thrusting and slashing. I think others have clarified other portions of the gladius argument."[/size]

It doesn't get an simpler than that, and made my entire argument in one paragraph. Tarbicus, you complete me.

[Tarbicus]

And praise be to Tarbicus for saying this:

Not I Magnus! That would be Virgil.