Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[marsvigilia]

I think they won the war.

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.

[floofthegoof]

That is an extremely negative stereotype of Eastern countries. How is a peasant in China any different than a farmer in Rome.

I did not mean to say that this type of authoritarianism is only an eastern characteristic. As a matter of fact, this Rome we have been discussing will be collapsing in a couple hundred years, not from a rival empire, but it's own top-heaviness.

Rome gained much power and influence by throwing out it's kings and making it's citizens feel they were all acting toward a common purpose. Their future and the future of their city was in their hands. As they prospered they slowly fell under the influence of that weakening effect that material wealth often brings. Want becomes need, and things never thought of prevoiusly become wanted, and then needed in turn. Rome became addicted to slaves, and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, until Rome became the very thing she most hated. A monarchy! There was still some momentum to carry things for a while but it was the beginning of the end. Eventually, this 'empire' no longer protected the interest of the people who lived within it, and was done away with.

[Anthrophobia]

Rome gained much power and influence by throwing out it's kings and making it's citizens feel they were all acting toward a common purpose. Their future and the future of their city was in their hands. As they prospered they slowly fell under the influence of that weakening effect that material wealth often brings. Want becomes need, and things never thought of prevoiusly become wanted, and then needed in turn. Rome became addicted to slaves, and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, until Rome became the very thing she most hated. A monarchy! There was still some momentum to carry things for a while but it was the beginning of the end. Eventually, this 'empire' no longer protected the interest of the people who lived within it, and was done away with.

Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today, mostly because a more democratic government is limited by technology in which only the chosen few can vote, so there's not much difference. As for making the common citizen feel needed, that's a common governing tactic in many governments, including the Han as well. However, one should note that this tactic does not work very well with the lower classes mostly because nationalism exists through education. Thus, nationalism wasn't as firmly rooted back then as it is now. The majority of the population was loyal to the single entity of the government, such as the emperor, or maybe the general, if they happen to be soldiers. I don't believe that government type really means anything in terms of national decline. They are just the opposite sides of the same coin. Governments may not want one to think that(as shown in history in which the Greeks despises the Persian government while the Han despises the XiongNu) since to do so does not benefit the nation, but the governments themselves are smart enough to realize that the opposing government isn't made of a bunch of fat, rich idiots.

[marsvigilia]

...the governments themselves are smart enough to realize that the opposing government isn't made of a bunch of fat, rich idiots.

I have to disagree. Buying ones own propaganda has a rich and illustrious history.

[Anthrophobia]

Absurd? It's proven, and undisputed that the gladius can inflict massive damage in both attack types. What is so absurd about that?

I never said that. I said a gladius is better at thrusting than cutting. I never said a cut from the gladius can't inflict massive damage. Due to that a cut from the gladius can kill, I can't think of any damage greater than 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.

I can't see it because you never discussed it. True, a cut and a thrust differs in effectiveness depending on the armor. However, thrusting weapons are great against most opponents that the Romans faced, including themselves(plate or semi-plate, scale and other whatnot), while cutting weapons are great against opponents the Han faced, including themselves(lamellar).

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?

Gabriel's armies of antiquity

"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!

Yes, because as I said, given enough force a kitchen knife can cut through bone. I never said that I can cut through bone using a kitchen knife, but if I'm strong enough, I can. It's simple.

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!

Never said they didn't use cuts, what I said is that thrusting would be used more. I think we are arguing the same concept but in such a way that it appears we are arguing for the opposite sides of the spectrum.

"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.

Combined arms wasn't unique to the Roman army for it exists in Han armies as well, and probably all successful armies, at least that I know of. The Han wore lamellar armour, which is resistant to thrusts but not as resistant to cuts. It's the exact opposite with the Roman army, in which armor tended to be more resistant to cuts and not very resistant to thrusts. I'm not saying that a thrust or cut can go THROUGH armor, I'm just saying that a cut or thrust has a bigger chance of touching flesh instead of the armour itself.

"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.

Obiously I'm talking about two swords that are same in everything but size/length/mass. What do you expect?

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.

Actually, there are many references to chop and slash. They could mean the same thing, and they can mean different things. Usually a chop gives the image of striking downwards more than that of a slash, but according to dictionary.com, there's not much difference between the two words beside that.

[floofthegoof]

Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today, mostly because a more democratic government is limited by technology in which only the chosen few can vote, so there's not much difference.

The romans always had more of an oligarchy than a democracy for most of it's history. But there were times when they came pretty close. The Romans did think monarchy was evil, even up to the time of Augustus.

Here is a fragment of an argument by Octavians friend Agrippa, the end of which is lost, as is the beginning of the counter argument by his other advisor Maecenas. In this text, the two arguments run together so look out for that. This discussion was had after Octavian achieved sole power.

Edit: copy and paste whole link. url code not handling * character
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/52*.html

It is not only a profound speech, but it says much about the Roman attitude towards monarchy.

As for making the common citizen feel needed, that's a common governing tactic in many governments, including the Han as well. However, one should note that this tactic does not work very well with the lower classes mostly because nationalism exists through education. Thus, nationalism wasn't as firmly rooted back then as it is now. The majority of the population was loyal to the government, such as the emperor, or maybe the general, if they happen to be soldiers.

Roman soldiers could become quite mutinous if their general did not have their best interests at heart. They loved him only as far as he appeared to love them. Delayed promises had better be made good if his command was to be retained.

I don't believe that government type really means anything in terms of national decline. They are just the opposite sides of the same coin. Governments may not want one to think that(as shown in history in which the Greeks despises the Persian government while the Han despises the XiongNu) since to do so does not benefit the nation, but the governments themselves are smart enough to realize that the opposing government isn't made of a bunch of fat, rich idiots.

I disagree, I think it makes perfect sense that a government will be supported by the people only as far as the government can return that support to the people. The very purpose of any government is to serve it's people, and naturally will be supported or abandoned depending on it's value in that regard.

[Dan Howard]

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.

Where do these figures come from? What do you mean by "cut through wrought iron"?

[John M McDermott]

Please, do we have any verifiable examples of swords cutting through metal armor? It is being discussed here as if it were scientific fact.

[Felix]

...

"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!

Yes, because as I said, given enough force a kitchen knife can cut through bone. I never said that I can cut through bone using a kitchen knife, but if I'm strong enough, I can. It's simple.

...

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.

Actually, there are many references to chop and slash. They could mean the same thing, and they can mean different things. Usually a chop gives the image of striking downwards more than that of a slash, but according to dictionary.com, there's not much difference between the two words beside that.

These are related concerns. Butchers can cut through bones - by chopping with meat cleavers, rather than slashing with lighter, sharper kitchen knives. Slashing or cutting usually involves some draw-cutting or back and forth sawing motion, while chopping does not necessitate this motion. Hence a karate "chop" is a direct blow without sawing or pulling action. A dictionary may not recognize this, but a cook does recognize it.

[Magnus]

Agreed.

[Tarbicus]

It seems odd to me that it wasn't until the turn of the 2ndC AD that the Romans decided to, en masse, increase the reinforcement of their armour, as well as increase the use of manicae and ocreae. That coincides with the Dacian Wars, where we know they had trouble against the falx. Logically, that means barbarian swords were not a real threat to their armour prior to then, otherwise we should see even more evidence of the supplemental armour than we do. I think it all was in use before the Dacian campaigns, but not as much.

Testing on a rig using hydraulics or similar scientific methods to simulate a blow is one thing, but that generally only tests the plate as a stationary piece of metal where its shape cannot really be taken into consideration in a fast moving, fluid and dynamic way. By that I mean the curvature of the armour mixed with movement, which I am more convinced was as crucial as the toughness and thickness of the plate. The same goes for hamata, squamata and plumata, which were made of small components, giving the result of a smoother and more deflective surface. It's that third property of Roman armour that intrigues me. It all, to me, seems designed to carry a blade across and away from the surface. The manica is a great example of this, especially the type with the upward overlap. Even the size of the hamata's rings suggest that it wasn't designed for sheer stopping power, but was designed to make as smooth and flexible a surface as practically possible to give a weapon somewhere to go. It makes me further wonder if Roman soldiers were taught not only how to give a blow, but also how to receive one, training day in and day out so it simply became second nature.

The curved scutum is a prime example, where there is much discussion on its stopping power, but little consideration given to the fact that it is a huge curved surface that could serve just as well to deflect a weapon as much as stop one dead in its tracks. The real advantage in that is the enemy's blow would carry through, leaving him more vulnerable to a counter-strike. If the Roman were resolute enough, or trained enough that way, it may well be that rather than being defensive against an enemy Gaul he may well welcome the Gaul to have a go, knowing full well he would have the advantage if a strike against him was made.

[Eleatic Guest]

... 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.

The loss of a man in a nomad society weighs much more, because he is not only a warrior, but also a family father, who gives protection to his wife(s) and numerous children. Thus, human losses can be socially less tolerated than in sedentary societies, especially those which follow the concept of a standing army, where the negative repercussions to the rest of the society are at a minimum.

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.

It is not if a nomad is living from the air. In case of defeat, he can get away with his horse, but his cattle will be left behind, since cattle is not moving much faster than even a walking man. But without cattle, his basis of life, he is practically dead.

And if the nomads keep the cattle far behind the front, it is always in danger of being seized by another group. In any case, the proportion of covering troops for his cattle, wife and children must be much greater than in sedentary societies, because of the complete lack of fortifications.

Women can herd sheep despite that their husband is dead, while for sedentary sociities and their sexist attitudes a family without a man = death.

I would rather say it is the other way round. In a sedentary, agricultural society there is better care for the wife and children and of killed, because other relatives are usually living in the same village to take care of them. In nomad society, where tens of thousand people move from pasture to pasture over large stretches of land, the risk of losing touch, locally and emotionally, to relatives is far greater.

A nomad can move to another land without any economical strain. A farmer or city dweller cannot.

I think you may be under te mistaken premise that the steppe is a void place which enough space to go anywhere any time. Kind of moon, only with air to breath. In fact, nomad movement are subject to a strict rhythm and that with a good reason. Nomads move from summer to winter pasture, from spring to spring with their cattle, so if a group gets defeated at the fringe of the steppe by a sedentary society, they just CAN'T retreat to any place on the steppe to their liking, but have to respect the movements of all other tribes, being in circular motion. If not, then another round of fighting breaks out immediately.

In a word, nomad societies are not at all as mobile as you may think. The Han were very well confronting an enemy who had his own strategical and tactical worries and limitations. The nomad bonus to Han China is less than you might think, more so, since it was the only real enemy, and the Han had therefore the luxury of concentrating the deployment of their forces, the training, weepons and equipment of their troops, on a single type of enemy. Rome, in contrast, had to build up an army which could cope with all types of enemies

As for the Han not having formidable enemies... what's that all about? ...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

The warring states are a zero-sum-consideration, and therefore not really relevant for any assessment of Han military might. What the one Chinese state wins in military glory and skill, the other necessarily loses.

If the Greek city-states had been forever battling among themselves, no historian would have realised the full military potential of the Greek hoplite armies. Yes, one could have made general inferences from the general level of warfare, but the real evidence for the military potential of the Greek city-states only came when they did beat the Persian superpower repeatedly and, overall, convincingly.

Such 'proof'', however, lacks in the case of Han China almost completely. The first high civilisations with which the Chinese had to deal with, were the Arabians in 751 and that resulted promptly in a defeat.

[Felix]

I am not convinced of the general superiority of Chinese armies, but in bringing up the fighting against the Arabs in Central Asia, I feel this is not a useful case. The Tang army was at the end of a very long logistical line, stretching across the Taklimakan Desert and mountain ranges. One might equally cite the failure of the Romans to hold onto a base on the Persian Gulf as evidence of their lack of military skills. Neither is particularly valid.

[Caius Fabius]

I suspect that some of our newer people are not reading the rules for Posting here at Roman Army Talk, but jumping in to something they see that is interesting.

I will make it simple to understand.
"Finally, before starting to post, please make sure your real name is in your signature. If you are reluctant about sharing your full name, your first name only will do. Also, please have a look at your profile and add in some information. Hey, if you enter your birthday info, we'll at least be able to congratulate you!"

This is a quote from the rules for posting.

[Dan Howard]

It seems odd to me that it wasn't until the turn of the 2ndC AD that the Romans decided to, en masse, increase the reinforcement of their armour, as well as increase the use of manicae and ocreae. That coincides with the Dacian Wars, where we know they had trouble against the falx. Logically, that means barbarian swords were not a real threat to their armour prior to then, otherwise we should see even more evidence of the supplemental armour than we do. I think it all was in use before the Dacian campaigns, but not as much.

All throughout history the same thing is evident. If armour didn't protect adequately against the most common threats then it was either reinforced till it did, or it was discarded completely.