Rome Vs Han China

[Jimbow]

Just for the record, the reason the French feared the longbow was not that armor didn't work, but that they had invested so much on calvary which was difficult to armor the horses

 

 

Well, the jury seems to be out on that one. But, the resounding victory at Agincourt seems to have had something to do with French knights being stuck in the mud. and, horse armour was certainly weaker........

 

But, the fact that the English were surprised by the resiliance of the Italian mercenary knights' armour leads one to suspect the armour was pretty poor with the French overall, especially when their lines were cut through by the Italians. Otherwise, why the big surprise?

 

Jim.

[Marcus Regulus]

Jimbow

Otherwise, why the big surprise?

 

Maybe because it wasn't about armor but the fact the Italian knights had better moral and training. At Agincort the French bunched themlves together and put themselves in lines. The choas that followed was the first line retreating into the other two was probably worth half the casulties alone. Maybe the Italians were just less wimpy about the whole thing or better tacticians. There are so many factors in war and armor is only one of them. In the time of Rome -- arrows were deadly as Crassus' encounter with the Parthians shows. But Roman armor left a lot exposed when it came to missles and was designed for face to face fighting. Armor is rarely designed for arrows, it is about what is in your face. Arrows require shields and formations for proper defense, but that is not the only factor. Arrows whistle and when you fire hudndreds of them at once -- the effect on moral can be devistating.

[Jimbow]

Arrows would bounce off French plate of the knight,

 

 

Well, that depends on the distance. Longbowmen could loose up to 9 arrows over 30 seconds, which gives plenty of shots at the charging knights at all manner of ranges. In tests against a steel breastplate, a bodkin-tipped arrow would dent the armour at 80m (260ft), puncture it at 30m (98ft) and penetrate right through plate and underlying doublet coat to the flesh at 20m (65ft). Figures based on tests made at the Royal Military College of Science Testing Ground. However, the Italians had a secret weapon.

 

Maybe the Italians were just less wimpy about the whole thing or better tacticians.

 

 

The fact remains that at Verneuil the Italian armour couldn't be penetrated by the English arrows, unlike other armours. I dare say you could call it a Middle Aged version of tank armour. I have no doubt the Italian morale was much higher than the French morale. In fact, they were probably lined up facing the English chuckling away and nudging each other knowingly. Because they managed to get all the way across the field pretty much unscathed, unlike their French paymasters, they cut through the longbowmen like a hot knife through butter. Unfortunately for the French, the Italians proved to be the worst tacticians, as, instead of taking advantage of their success, they decided to loot the baggage train instead. The English regrouped and beat the remaining French, even though they were heavily outnumbered by 2 to 1.

[Anthrophobia]

"Equipment -- Romans of the legions early Empire were the cream of the crop here. Not sure about the Han Dynasty, but for the sake of argument let's say they are the same."

 

No. Here's some examples.

1) Han used carbonated steel for weapons, while Rome used iron.

2) An average Han ballista can go up to 500 m, while for the Romans it's 400.

3) The Han had power bows that can pierce through the Roman shield(which is made out of plywood with some iron, only effective against other Roman bows, not Han ones) in 300 meters.

 

"Training -- with the exception of the Spartans I can think of no better trained in all things military than the Romans. They could do it all and often did. They were the world's first truly professinal army."

 

Western Han had conscriptions, but each had at least two yrs of training before battle. Eastern Han switched to a fully proffessional army like the Romans.

 

"Moral -- This is the key fact, because the best equiped and trained soldier who does not want to fight is uselss compared to one that does."

 

This "COMPLETELY" depends on the situation and the general. Moral always change, you can't really say which army had better moral.

[Marcus Regulus]

Anthrophobia,

Hey, thanks for the info on the Han.

 

They had the technology edge that's for sure, but I would say the Romans were better trained, comes down to who was feeling better and who had the high ground then

[Anthrophobia]

Yes, at the very heights of both powers, I do believe that the Romans were better trained. I just wanted to point out that the Han didn't fight with peasant armies, but proffesionals, or at least semi-proffessionals, that's all.

[TMPikachu]

The Han also have a merit based army. By theory, a peasant can prove himself and rise to the rank of commander. Of course, military noble families tended to focus on such fields. Though no 'knighthood' really existed, there were families which had a history of military training, so their sons who join the Imperial army would have been raised for battlefield leadership roles.

 

On armor comparisons- The lorica worn by romans was made from a softer iron than the lamellar worn by Han soldiers. This seems to suit the designs both fielded. The lorica was made from large plates, softer iron would be easier to form for that role. Since Han use lamellar, the smaller scales can be made of harder iron, while flexibility is maintained through the many scales used. For commanders, steel suits have been found.

[Primus Pilus]

1) Han used carbonated steel for weapons, while Rome used iron.

The Romans used steel. One famous variety was Noric Steel

[Guest ZZT]

Equipment -- Romans of the legions early Empire were the cream of the crop here. Not sure about the Han Dynasty, but for the sake of argument let's say they are the same.

 

Training -- with the exception of the Spartans I can think of no better trained in all things military than the Romans. They could do it all and often did. They were the world's first truly professinal army.

 

Moral -- This is the key fact, because the best equiped and trained soldier who does not want to fight is uselss compared to one that does.

 

I give the Romans of the Early Empire the edge because they had all three, in the han Dynasty I don't know. But I imagine it would be ugly.

 

 

Equiptment- what makes you think that the Han was able to survive 400 years. I don't think an empire that survived that long would have bad equpitment for their soldiers, especially with Xiongnu and such.

 

Training- As you said, you have no idea what the Han Military is, so what gives you the right to say that the Romans had superior forces? Here are plenty of facts to show off the training of the Han military

 

Source: http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decresp...ny/mil_org.html

 

The Northern Army (bei jun), based at the capital, Luoyang, was the central strategic reserve of the empire. Under Later Han the Northern Army comprised five regiments (ying): the Archers Who Shoot at a Sound (shesheng), the Footsoldiers (bubing), the Elite Cavalry (yueji), the Garrison Cavalry (tunji) and the Chang River Regiment (Changshui). Each was commanded by a Colonel (xiaowei), whose rank was expressed by nominal salary Equivalent to Two Thousand shi of Grain (bi erqian shi), and the whole force was supervised by a Captain of the Centre of the Northern Army (beijun zhonghou), with rank/salary of Six Hundred shi.

 

The men of the Northern Army were professional, skilled soldiers, who could be sent to any point of danger or disturbance as stiffening to forces recruited locally.

 

 

We have noted that the two units of Gentlemen of the Household Rapid as Tigers and of the Feathered Forest were probably cadets in training for military commissions. Other troops on the frontier were recruited locally or came through one of three depots: the Camp at Yong

[skel]

the hans only lasted 400 years?

 

 

 

how long did the romans last?

 

 

kekekekekek

 

also you say what would stop the hans from attacking the romans in the same ways that Parthians did? well im sure that since the romans have fought the parthains..after the first battle of the hans, seeing that they are fighting the same way, would devise tactics and strategies to counter... such as any good tactition would

[nic]

'the hans only lasted 400 years?

 

 

 

how long did the romans last?

 

 

kekekekekek '

 

 

Geez man, Rome's length of history is nothing compared to China's (remember, Han is just one of the dynasties) Sure, Rome's time was great but you have no real reason to 'kekeke'

And remember that Rome didn't start off big, even by around the 350's bc it didn't control even half of the Italian perninsula. I've read that things really started happening after they defeated Hanibal's forces in 207bc (and remember, for a time it seemed likely he could crush Rome). Rome was moving to the defensive, and on its decline by about the start of the 3rd century. So if you calculate the dates difference, 207bc to 200, its not much different. So Rome's actual greatness isn't much different to Han China's, but then, China's overall length just blitzs it.

 

 

'also you say what would stop the hans from attacking the romans in the same ways that Parthians did? well im sure that since the romans have fought the parthains..after the first battle of the hans, seeing that they are fighting the same way, would devise tactics and strategies to counter... such as any good tactition would'

 

Well whats your point, is it that Roman generals can think? If so then big deal, the Chinese have brains too you know. And quite frankly I don't think Rome is exactly known for there great minds. I can remember a joke saying something like: when the gods were handing out drains the Romans thought they said brains and took heaps. Hence there remarkable aquaducts. Also I think its said that Rome copied much of its cultural aspects and knowledge from the Greeks who they admired greatly. Its not to say the Romans weren't smart (far from it) but there is a reason as to why Greece, and not Rome, is regarded as the cradle of western civilization.

 

And I just read a big paper on Chinese warfare. China has the largest documented history of warfare in the world it said. It also said that the Chinese tactics were more based on strategy and intelligence, rather then force of numbers, this is what goes on in modern times. The book, "the Art of War" and others indicate this. It also talks about how China's warfare was lightyears ahead of the wests, but I won't ram that one down your throat. If you want I could show you the paper.

[Fafnir]

Okay Rome never fought China, Rome never will fight China, and the more you guys argue about it wont bring them to rivalry. We dont know who would win, most of the people on this site do not have an education for the Chinese way of battle, thats why we're on a Roman forum. And most of the people on the 'Chinese' forum probably do not have a very great Roman education.

 

Fact of the matter is, ive seen many biased opinions on this thread, and biased opinions tend to give false information. Besides, im tired of seeing these Chinese fanboys (no offense ) rant about how great the Han army was, because apparently not all the facts are known about that said army.

 

In conclusion, this thread is bringing me to insanity.

[Fatboy]

ZZT,

You quote part of my post referring to the differing styles of eastern and western ways of war and then say " Wow Chinese and Persians both use their cavalry to envelop their enemies. That makes them the same. Really consider what you are writing before you write it. "

Well you can kiss my ass with that sarcastic tone for starters.

I never said that makes them the same, I was simply pointing out fundamental truths about the STYLES western/eastern warfare. If you bother to read my posts you'll see that I point out how our assumptions of the similarities between the Persians and the Chinese QUOTE "are due to ignorance more than anything else" but how we can use the Persians as a guide to the style of warfare that would ensue because of the differing cultural approach to war between east and west throughout history.The statement is true in itself, I'm not trying to say anything about the Persians and the Han being " the same "

You then go on to say " whats stopping China from doing the same thing to the Romans? " effectively agreeing with me

So maybe you should try and understand what other people are talking about before YOU write.

 

I understand that you seem to know more about the details of the Han military than most of us so others speculation probably pisses you off, but you seem to be talking it very personal. You would have been better off HELPING by filling us in about the Han so we would not have to speculate so much instead of attacking everyone just because we don't know so much about China.

This site is about Rome, ignorance of Chinese Dynastic warfare is to be expected, so (edited by system) the Han and (edited by system) you too

[Primus Pilus]

Language filter

 

Lets not make this so personal. I'm not sure I understand arguing about unscientific possibilities over who was better? As neither side can 'prove' its superiority, I find the whole topic a bit moot, but if people like to speculate thats fine. If it continues on this path, however, the thread will be locked.

[Fatboy]

Primuspilus :sorry!!

I completely overeacted I think

Please note that I don't mind people dissagreeing with me as I can talk rubbish sometimes

In fact I often look forward to you guys taking apart my arguments

I actually didn't take either side in the disscussion( I tentatively called it a draw )

Its just ZZT came out of the blue with SUCH a condacending and patronising tone that it just struck a nerve with me. ( plus I've had a bad day )

No hard feelings ZZT, you obviously do know what youre talking about when it comes to China ( more than me anyway ), just try not to talk to me like I'm an idiot please

Oh by the way, I knew about the language feature - I just thought it looked cool that way

 

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: