Alexander VS Qin dynasty

Originally Posted by LostWraith

Very interesting. I always thought there was a lag in farming technology after Rome fell but clearly it's not the case. Thanks for the info.

There was a lag after the fall of the industrial scale Latifundia. I am not sure of the exact sequence, but I am guessing the natural population growth brought on by the warm period pushed the other changes in agriculture out of necessity.


[quote]Roman and Greek ballista/catapult are weapons using torsion power to shoot stones and bolts, and operate on completely different mechanical

principles than a tension crossbow in Asia.....

I am not talking artillery but individual sied crossbows.

The late Roman army - Google Books

No argument with that, I was just listing an example in history where crossbows caught up and surpassed the bow in power and was certainly capable of firing metal bolts. There is no evidence of any metal bolts from the Qin dynasty, which was more than 1000 years before the arbalest was invented anyway.

Some posters here think the solid bronze bolts found with the terra cotta army are in fact the actual rounds used.

That is not an accurate depiction of a Mongolian saber. Mongolian sabers are much more curved than that, few swords surpass it in curvature in the world. It was designed to slash and cut, not to bludgeon. In the lightly armored armies of the East, it was sufficient to cut through most defenses designed to ward off arrows. The Osprey book series is infamous for inaccurate information. You should take it with a grain of salt.

These are what Mongolian swords actually look like. Their design remained with the Turks for a long time so Turkish swords through the centuries reflected the original Mongolian design.
ImageShack Gallery

Interesting, but its still a bludgeon. If you look at the curve in the context of a blow delivered from horseback you'll see why. A slashing weapon only really exists on foot, a blow delivered from a moving horse has an incredible amount of energy behind it. Remember the scene from Gladiator when he left his sword in a tree? Curved weapons were created so that lighter weapons would not do that in the human/horse body but would naturally rotate free.

Also i think if you do some digging you'll find the hone or edge was like I said closer to that of an axe than a knife.

I highly doubt that differences armor was the principle determinant in Mongolian victories. After all it took as long for the Mongols to take down the Song dynasty at its worst corrupted state as it took them to reach Eastern Europe.

I did say small. But such a heavy cavalryman would be all but impervious to arrow heads designed to cut through leather at all but the closest ranges.

Well the Macedonians weren't very heavily armored. Only the front two ranks wore metal armor of any sort, and the rest wore linen and leather, which are light and affordable. The Romans also had relatively light armor. A chain shirt and some leather padding equipped most roman soldiers until the Augustan legions that saw the wide spread usage of lorica segmenta, which is itself thin overlapping iron bands with a shoulder guard. Even then, only the legionaires wore these, and most auxilia retained the chain shirt, if even that. Soon after Rome passed its height of power, chain became common place again until late medieval Europe. I don't mean to neglect the helmet, but all of these groups had helmets so it's not really a useful "difference" to point out.
Neither groups wore as much as the Greeks, who had a thick bronze/iron cuirass, lower limb guards, all made of bronze or iron. It's understandable considering that Greeks fought locally and defensively, while placing heavy emphasis on individual athleticism that no other culture had.

No disagreement here, I've been saying the armor protection of the hopilites would not be rivaled until the late middle ages.

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

Pros and cons of bronze versus iron versus steel. Pros and cons. Overall, iron weapons were superior to bronze weapons. Initially, iron weapons were inferior, but this was due to the production technique. Once solved, iron weapons were superior overall than bronze weapons, then steel weapons replaced iron weapons, but steel is an iron alloy.

None of that changes the fact that Bronze is a stronger heavier metal than iron which is both its greatest strength and biggest draw back.

Every major civilization in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia switched from bronze weapons to iron weapons as soon as they could produce good iron weapons, then they went to steel. Militaries with good iron weaopons had the advantage over their bronze opponents. Gee, it must be because properly made iron weapons were superior overall, or it could be that you're right and everyone else was stupid.

If you would actually research the issue you will see that the use of Iron is nearly as old as bronze, but that the use of Iron did not gain widespread use until easily exploited tin and copper deposits were for the most part used up. Like most technology the biggest determinate is cost. Bronze is expensive, when and only when the price went up high enough did ancient cultures look for a replacement.

The Qin fought against at least one enemy who had superior iron technology and production when compared to the Qin's bronze, but like I previously said, the Qin still figured out a way to win. The enemy apparently made lots iron weapons that was near steel weapons' quality.

I've been saying Bronze was not at all inferior to early iron in many ways and superior in some so I am not surprised, but what does this have to do with the discussion?

For sources read Chinese historians who specialize in the Qin dynasty. Read about the Qin crossbows with triggers, locks, and sights. Read about their design of various bronze and iron weapons, protective coating on their metals, etc. Read about their draw strength, penetrating power, range, ergonomics, sights, production capability, etc. You can easily Google this and find English summaries.

Most is unsupported speculation, or what I've already said- solid weapons but not wonder technology like your claiming.

Propellant? You think arrows and bolts flew by magical power. They were propelled by mechanical force, first potential then kinetic.

propellant as in chemicals.

you said, "You have to consider the propellant, the straightness barrel or the projectile's travel through the bow and crossbow," clearly implying a chemical reaction.

Once again, you miss my point. A Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were Bmost likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

1. you have not established A
2. B does not logically follow from A

Mongols were outnumbered most of the time, possibly all of the time, they were fighting against the East Europeans. Then remember what I told you, the Mongols fought on foreign territory. The Europeans had local support. The Mongols used dummy soldiers/scare scrows to make them look more abundant.

Dummy troops don't move, the Mongols used mobility. The Mongol's own records give them numbers to match or exceed the Europeans.

For a full list of battles and numbers, try Wikipedia and many other websites. Try history books, too. You'll see that the Mongols were usually outnumbered.

I gave you the two biggest battles the Mongols fought in Europe- in neither one were they outnumbered. I think the Mongols are a better source as to how many Tumens they sent than your belief that since they won they must have been outnumbered.

Nonetheless, my point still stands: if the Mongol bows/crossbows can do it, then so can the Chinese variety, at the very least.

Again a serious fallacy in reasoning- Mongol/Chinese technology could not do it vs mostly chain equipped knights except at close range.

Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

A is unsupported and B does not logically follow from it.

Once again, another straw man argument. This doesn't change the fact that the Mongols were typically outnumbered and most Mongols wore thick clothing for armor, while Europeans were more likely to use organic armor and metal armor. The Mongols gunned down the European army, even the heavily armored knights from a distance. Mongol bows were on par or inferior to Chinese bows and crossbows of the Qin dynasty.

Nor have you supported that most Mongols only wore clothing for armor.

No strawman there. The Mongols were not outnumbered and had the advantage of superior mobility, including heavy cav to count the knights.

Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

A and B

It's not a matter of logic, but history. Philosophize all you want. I want to know what really happened. Battle of Sogdiana (36 BC) ring a bell? This was only one small battle. Anyhow, historical records said the Roman soldiers had typical Roman armor with the typical turtle formation/phalanx tactic, but this was of no use against the Han soldiers' ranged weapons.

Enslaved remnants of Crassus army probably without any or enough missile support of their own and badly outnumbered and without much will to fight and it proves nothing.

Read what I previously wrote about pros and cons of bronze versus iron verson steel.

Why, you continue to ignore history that does not fit your narrow China is always the best view.

Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

A and B

If you say so, but history says otherwise. The Europeans depended on melee combat for most of their history. As early as the Qin Dynasty (probably earlier), the Chinese realized the superiority of well-made bows and crossbows over melee combat. Even in melee combat, the Chinese favored long range melee weapons.

That is a rather static and unsupported view. Yes many European Armies relied on melee, but so did a lot of non-European Armies. But even then it was not complete. The English longbow, the Rhodian slingers, Roman Sagitarri. Italian Crossbow men missile troops existed and in good numbers.

Europeans depended more on armor and used more armor than their Mongol and Chinese counterparts. The Mongols and Chinese did have heavily armored soldiers, but they were not the centerpiece. For Mongols and the Qin and Han, their archers, crossbowmen, and artillery were the leading factors, then came the melee.

And yet vs the Hungarians it took the artillery and heavy cav not arrows to force the bridge.

Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

A and B

The European soldiers were gunned down at a various ranges. The Mongols avoided melee combat for the most part. This is expected because the Mongols were outnumbered in Europe, in the Middle East, and in China. Plus the Mongols were on hostile territory. The Mongols once made an error, so the Europeans were able to pin down the Mongols against a river, the Mongols held them back with their bows, crossbows, and artillery. Read some more history. Start with wikipedia, which is sourced to a few books, and then go visit the library for more information. Mongol bows and crossbows were similar, or inferior to Qin and Han bows and crossbows.

The Mongols were not outnumbered.

Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen used bows and crossbows that were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.

A and B

Ancient Europeans first depended on melee weapons even though they had ranged weapons, because ancient Europeans ranged weapons were ineffective as the main weapon, but good as a support weapon.

Huh, a weapon is a weapon if it can wound/kill in support it can wound/kill in main. The primacy of the infantry and later heavy cavalry is due to social factors not technology.

Ancient Chinese (Qin and Han) quickly moved onto ranged weapons as their primary weapons, because Chinese ranged weapons were capable of defeating well armored, melee soldiers.

Well armored is not a universal standard. What the ancient Chinese and ancient Greeks or Romans considered heavy protection probably is quite different.

The Chinese only used melee combat when they had the advantage or when forced to, but they strongly preferred to prep the enemy with a barrage of ranged weapons, then go in for an easry melee victory. Keep in mind the Qin and Han Dynasties ahd excellent grasp of organic armor, bronze technology, and iron technology (including steel), but it wasn't enough to handle Chinese projectile weapons.

Not much different from the Persians, who had some notable victories vs the Romans and Greeks but just as many if not more defeats.

bronze weapons were eventually surpassed by iron weapons, which were improved into steel weapons.

Not an argument, but your ignoring why iron rose to prominence.

Mongols were outnumbered in Europe in most battles and on an absolute count

This claim is false.

Mongols accomplished this by many factors, such as their superior mobile ranged weapons.

Command and control had more to do with it.

The Parthian bow probably had a draw weight of 70 lb. Don't know the quality of its arrows, which is a big factor. 9,000 lightly armored, mounted Parthians with their bows. Just like the Mongols and Chinese, these Parthian shooters wore clothing only as armor, but they wore less clothing (probably had something to do with the desert).

1,000 heavily armored, mounted Parthians with lances longer than their Roman counterparts.

These 10,000 Parthians faced at least 28,000 Roman soldiers, possibly twice as much more. The Parthian mounted archers shot up the Roman soldiers, then the Parthian lancers finished off the Romans. Romans and Parthians both said the Parthian bow was superior in range and penetration over the Roman bow. The Romans were out-ranged, so they resorted to turtling, which only delayed the inevitable. Then the Parthians used their heavily armored, mounted soldiers with lances to finish off the weak Roman leftovers. The Parthians had light casualties. The end result was the Romans were left with only ~10,000 survivors.

1. The Romans were led by Crassus- a very rich idiot whose only claim to military fame was crushing Spartacus.

2. Crassus ignored solid military advice.

3. The Romans who broke away and followed that advice formed the core of an army that crushed the Persians IIRC 2 years later.

4. Look where the battle was fought then do an overlay of the Roman Empire hundreds of years later at its height- you'll see Rome went East all the way to Basra in modern day Iraq.

Even after this stunning loss, the Romans continued to favor melee combat over ranged combat. Only a few hundred years later did the Romans finally create effective ranged combat and effective mounted shooters against the Parthians.

The Romans and Parthians battled a few more times, and the overall result was a stalemate. Parthians were allies of the Han Dynasty.

Rome did not need to change- they won more than they lost. The change was brought about by other factors. Declining enlistment in the legions required a more mobile army, new threats on multiple borders, rise of Equestrians as a noble class to supplant the traditional senators etc.

Qin and Han bows and crossbows had superior draw weights over Parthian bows, which were superior to any mobile projectile weapons the Romans had, thus Qin and Han mobile ranged weapons were superior to their Roman counterparts.

unsupported claim, a reconstructed turkish bow had a draw weight of over 99 pounds.

Ottoman bows—an assessment of draw weight, performance and tactical use | Antiquity | Find Articles at BNET

Average draw weight was 111lbs for bows made from the same material and in roughly the same style as that available to the Persians/Scythian/Romans/Greeks.

After the first devastating lost, the Romans adapted their melee-focused army so it was equal (NOT superior) to the Parthian army. It seemed like some successful Roman tactics involved catching the Parthian army unprepared or launching surprise attacks or drawing them to attack fortified positions backed by siege weapons.

Absolutely false

zraver, please read the following from wiki:

"Around 500 BC, however, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu developed an iron smelting technology that would not be practiced in Europe until late medieval times. In Wu, iron smelters achieved a temperature of 1130°C, hot enough to be considered a blast furnace which could create cast iron.[27][28][29] At this temperature, iron combines with 4.3% carbon and melts. As a liquid, iron can be cast into molds, a method far less laborious than individually forging each piece of iron from a bloom.

Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons. A mass grave in Hebei province, dated to the early third century BC, contains several soldiers buried with their weapons and other equipment. The artifacts recovered from this grave are variously made of wrought iron, cast iron, malleabilized cast iron, and quench-hardened steel, with only a few, probably ornamental, bronze weapons."

What I want to say is we get your point, Bronze is superior to poorly made Iron, but you should also understand our point, which is high quality Iron alloy and Steel beats bronze.

Before you go on speculating how European bronze is better than Chinese bronze allow me to draw your attention to the Sword of Goujian and the rest of the Zhou period weapons.


I don't quite understand why Mongols would be taken into debate in an Alex vs Warring states thread, but I'll bite.
Mongols fought with the Chinese for long long time, this fact alone proves the superiority of Chinese archery.

Why? Because when archers have the upper hand, the enemy cavalry will simply retreat, and there's nothing archers can do about it. On the other hand, if the cavalry has the upper hand, we can expect to see a lot of dead archers. I don't need to argue with you on the technicalities, the result speaks for its own logic.

Now if the Mongols had heavy armor as you suggested multiple times, this would actually reinforce my point on the strength of Chinese archery.


Now I suggest you don't get so worked up trying to squeeze through tiny mouse holes, propellant is simply material(eg. bow string) that propels another object, it doesn't necessarily have to be chemicals.

You are narrowing your perspective too much in each of your points, you might seem make sense in a limited context but that doesn't apply when you consider everything together.

Crassus may be an incompetent commander, but if you actually bothered to read about Sogdiana you'd realize the text specifically mentioned Chinese crossbows easily penetrated Roman armor and shields.

I know you talked morale and will and stuff like that, but this isn't a super robot anime/game, your shield and armor doesn't heal itself and become stronger when you have higher morale!!!

Finally, not matter what you say about the relative strength of European bows, they were not able to do significant damage to Roman legions.

In conclusion, Chinese archery beat Mongol cavalry, Roman Infantry, and any archer that cannot penetrate Roman armor and shields.

zraver. I apologize because I don't have time to reply to every comment, and I must sum the most important points here briefly.

The key is that ranged weaponry throughout history has always been stronger than any mobile protection. The only armor and shields that can effectively stop a missile is too heavy to be carried over long distances without extensive logistical support. The bottom line is no Roman, Mongolian, or Macedonian armor can stop an arrow or a bolt just like today no helmet can stop a bullet. It will lessen the damage and make recovery more likely, but a square hit of an arrow or bolt, be it on lorica segmenta or mongolian lamellar, will go through the armor and injure/kill the man behind it. The Mongolian armor is not designed to stop an arrow entirely but to make post battle surgery easier.

Most mobile armor is designed to defend against melee strikes. Any armor designed to completely stop an arrow or bolt cannot possibly be mobile.

Originally Posted by xywdx

zraver, please read the following from wiki:

"Around 500 BC, however, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu developed an iron smelting technology that would not be practiced in Europe until late medieval times. In Wu, iron smelters achieved a temperature of 1130°C, hot enough to be considered a blast furnace which could create cast iron.[27][28][29] At this temperature, iron combines with 4.3% carbon and melts. As a liquid, iron can be cast into molds, a method far less laborious than individually forging each piece of iron from a bloom.

Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons. A mass grave in Hebei province, dated to the early third century BC, contains several soldiers buried with their weapons and other equipment. The artifacts recovered from this grave are variously made of wrought iron, cast iron, malleabilized cast iron, and quench-hardened steel, with only a few, probably ornamental, bronze weapons."

What I want to say is we get your point, Bronze is superior to poorly made Iron, but you should also understand our point, which is high quality Iron alloy and Steel beats bronze.

For most applications yes, but the bell corselet provided superior protection vs any iron or steel armor of the period- its trade off was weight.

I don't quite understand why Mongols would be taken into debate in an Alex vs Warring states thread, but I'll bite.
Mongols fought with the Chinese for long long time, this fact alone proves the superiority of Chinese archery.

Its doesn't follow, prior to being unified the Mongols were divided so the numbers were on the side of China, who also used Mongol cousins in their own army. China like wise had fortifications, deep reserves, interior lines etc. Despite the advantages, several Chinese dynasties built walls to keep the invaders out- walls begin very good at stopping a horses forward progress. Now if your talking wall protected crossbowmen with artillery support vs Mongolian tribal raiders your point is a resounding yes. But once the Mongols were inside the walls so to speak- or the Chinese ventured forth from their walls the battles usually favored the horsemen.

Why? Because when archers have the upper hand, the enemy cavalry will simply retreat, and there's nothing archers can do about it. On the other hand, if the cavalry has the upper hand, we can expect to see a lot of dead archers. I don't need to argue with you on the technicalities, the result speaks for its own logic.

look what happened when the horse got past the fortifications.

Now if the Mongols had heavy armor as you suggested multiple times, this would actually reinforce my point on the strength of Chinese archery.

40% of the Mongol force was lancers, which are equally useless vs fortifications as horse archers and nothing is proven. Do you have accounts of open field fights. Look for example at the Battle of badger Mouth- Mongol arrows not Chinese decided the day.

Now I suggest you don't get so worked up trying to squeeze through tiny mouse holes, propellant is simply material(eg. bow string) that propels another object, it doesn't necessarily have to be chemicals.

True you could use water, steam etc, but propellant is a substance not a thing- a bow string is a particular item.

You are narrowing your perspective too much in each of your points, you might seem make sense in a limited context but that doesn't apply when you consider everything together.

I try and take everything in context.

Crassus may be an incompetent commander, but if you actually bothered to read about Sogdiana you'd realize the text specifically mentioned Chinese crossbows easily penetrated Roman armor and shields.

1. We don't know for sure they were Romans
2. We don't know how many were there on either side
3. We don't know that if they were legionaries if they had any auxillary support
4. We don't know if they kept their equipment or were re-armed by the Persians- most had lost their scutums in combat.


There are several more, but the fact remains that a lot of questions are unanswered and thus a definitive statement about the quality of one vs the other cannot be made.

I know you talked morale and will and stuff like that, but this isn't a super robot anime/game, your shield and armor doesn't heal itself and become stronger when you have higher morale!!!

Never claimed it was, but higher morale does play a huge part. Troops who lack the will to battle will give up far sooner than others and may throw away victory by doing so.

Finally, not matter what you say about the relative strength of European bows, they were not able to do significant damage to Roman legions.

True, the Lorica Segmentata was designed to shed missiles so the gladius could be brought close.

In conclusion, Chinese archery beat Mongol cavalry A, Roman Infantry, and any archer that cannot penetrate Roman armor and shields B.

B does not automatically follow from A. Mongol's beat China, outside of fortifications most fights favored the Mongols. Even if Chinese archery had defeated the Mongols it would mean nothing in a discussion about the Greeks and Romans because the protection levels and style of combat were so vastly different. Mongol heavy lancers and European knights had less overall protection in the 1200's than a Greek hoplite or Early imperial Legionnaire did more than a thousand years earlier.

Don't take my post out of context, read them as whole and then answer me.
Like I said before, you always narrow your perspective when you are making a response.

Originally Posted by xywdx

Don't take my post out of context, read them as whole and then answer me.
Like I said before, you always narrow your perspective when you are making a response.

Your taking things out of context. For example your arguing that China beat a garrison that might have been Roman and thus China > Rome when common sense argues that we cannot make that statement because we don't know if they were Romans, what shape they were in, hour they were led or equipped or even how many of combatants there were. You make a similar argument about the Mongols, claiming Chinese archery > mongol archery. Again this statement is unsupported because from the time the Mongols unified within 60 years China was a Mongol imperial possession.

No one is arguing that Chinese archery was poor, but it wasn't the ancient equivalent of the A bomb either. Technology West and East was roughly comparable. Where one side led in one area- the other had a lead in another. For example, you claimed outfitting infantry in heavy armor was too expensive, which might have been true for China. But at one point Rome had over 100,000 legionnaires in service in heavy armor.

Originally Posted by zraver

For example, you claimed outfitting infantry in heavy armor was too expensive, which might have been true for China. But at one point Rome had over 100,000 legionnaires in service in heavy armor.

A chain shirt or lorica segmenta is not heavy armor by any comparison to earlier or later european or even some asian standards. Legionaires were heavy infantry but that doesn't mean they were very heavily armored.

I never said China > Rome, I said the history showed Chinese Crossbows > Roman armor/shield, and as a result Chinese archers should be able to pick apart Roman infantry with no problem.

In this situation, you are arguing your common sense is more reliable than the work of a dedicated scholar, I find that hard to accept.

Mongols and China conflicted for a long time, cavalry is inherently strong against archery, the fact that China dealt with Mongols for centuries is testimony to its archery. Archers have no way of claiming a definite victory over cavalry because like I mentioned before, the cavalry can retreat at anytime with no fear of pursuit.

In Han dynasty there was a small expedition consisting of 5,000 men who ventured deep into Mongol territory, they were assaulted and pursued by 110,000 mongol cavalry. The small Chinese force fought against overwhelming numbers in enemy territory, yet they still killed far more than they lost. Normally Mongols do not give these long battles against Han forces, this was an exception because they had the insurmountable numbers advantage, and as a result they took heavy casualties.

Mongols eventually conquered the Song dynasty during the darkest hour of Imperial Chinese History. The court at that time was arguably the most corrupted one in history, Song already lost control of a large portion of their territories, they were well on their way to destruction and it still took 60 years.
Edit: I am also going to mention that the conquest of China only took place after Mongols made considerable progress into the west, which fell far faster than Song. And it was by no means easy victory for the Mongols, they were locked in a stalemate until Mongols found the resources to deploy large numbers of western siege engines.

Nothing is the equivalent of an A bomb, no one argued that, but Chinese archery was at least on par with Alexander's cavalry as the most effective troops.

Rome was different from China in that Rome constantly found regions to conquer, treasure to plunder, they were getting wealthy at their neighbour's expense. China never had that luxury, they had to take care of all their people as well as providing equipment for the military through agriculture and commerce.

Originally Posted by LostWraith

A chain shirt or lorica segmenta is not heavy armor by any comparison to earlier or later european or even some asian standards. Legionaires were heavy infantry but that doesn't mean they were very heavily armored.

The Lorica Segmentats weighed 20 pounds. that is 20 pounds of iron over the chest and that is heavy armor by any pre-gunpowder standard.

Originally Posted by xywdx

I never said China > Rome, I said the history showed Chinese Crossbows > Roman armor/shield, and as a result Chinese archers should be able to pick apart Roman infantry with no problem.

And I will re-point out that the garrison that was overwhelmed might or might not have been Roman, might or might not have been legionnaires or mkght have been auxilla, might or might not have kept their defensive equipment (any artifacts recovered), might or might not have had their own officers, might or might not have been grossly outnumbered, and might or might not have felt like fighting for Persians who enslaved them.

We do know the Persians did not make pilums, scutums, or gladius swords. Any equipment not recovered from the battlefield would have to be repalced with local equipment.

In this situation, you are arguing your common sense is more reliable than the work of a dedicated scholar, I find that hard to accept.

1. show me the artifacts that prove it was a Roman legion, fighting in the Roman manner, with Roman equipment at fair odds. Anything else is speculation.

Mongols and China conflicted for a long time, cavalry is inherently strong against archery, the fact that China dealt with Mongols for centuries is testimony to its archery.

Within 60 years of the Mongols unifying- China fell. China proved it could deal with the isolated tribe by force and by playing one tribe against the other. However once those tribes united- force failed.

Mongols eventually conquered the Song dynasty during the darkest hour of Imperial Chinese History. The court at that time was arguably the most corrupted one in history, Song already lost control of a large portion of their territories, they were well on their way to destruction and it still took 60 years.
Edit: I am also going to mention that the conquest of China only took place after Mongols made considerable progress into the west, which fell far faster than Song. And it was by no means easy victory for the Mongols, they were locked in a stalemate until Mongols found the resources to deploy large numbers of western siege engines.

The war in China was interrupted by the Khwarazim Empire's gross greed and stupidity.

1206- The tribes are unfied
1209 Western Xia acknowledge Mongol over lordship= 1 Chinese empire down in 3 years.

1211-13 First part of the war v the Jin. Mongols seize everything north/West of the Great Wall.
1213-15 Took Northern China and captured the Jin capitol of Yanjing (Bejing).

1218- Secodn war v the Xia- Xia sue for peace

1225- Ghengis Khan's last campign- Xia overrun.

1234- Jin finally extinquished

1253-56 Yunnan overrun

1235-70 Conquest of the Song.

You'll notice it was not one continual war, with periods of peace and other periods where the Mongols were fighting multiple wars.

Under Batu Khan and Subotei using pretty much the same soldiers in Europe:

(1) Mongol Invasion of Rus: 20,000 Mongos vs 80,000 Russians

(2) Mongol Invasion of Poland: 10K vs 10K to 30K

(3) Mongol Invasion of Hungary: 70K vs 80K (Mongols lost 1,000 men and the Europeans lost 40,000 men)

Notice how the same group of Mongol soldiers fighting on distant lands easily defeated many, different European soldiers on European turf. The Mongols broke apart and coalesced as necessary to defeat various, different European armies, but they belonged to same group under Batu and Subotei. The Mongols had minimal casualties while the Europeans suffered devastating losses. The East Europeans won a few small battles, but not enough to stop the Mongol onslaught. The Mongols preferred to and mostly fought from a range. All from wikipedia, which is sourced to books.

The Mongols used bow and crossbow technology similar to that found in the Qin and Han Dynasty.

From wikipedia to history books, ancient Romans were NOT known for using their mobile ranged weapons (i.e., bows, crossbows, and mobile artillery) as an effective or primary weapon when battling against Parthia. Parthia was known for their ranged weapons, which historian descriptions indicated the Parthian bow probably had inferior draw weights to Qin and Han dynasties' ranged weapons (70 lb vs at least 90 lb).

Wikipedia continues to claim that good iron weapons eventually replaced good bronze weapons by civilizations throughout Europe to the Middle East to Asia. Cherry pick your excuses, but this happened.

Cherry pick all you want, but historical reality is against you. The Qin and Han Dynasties had the best bows, crossbows, and mobile artillery of their time, and were capable of effectively penetrating European armor.

Originally Posted by zraver

The Lorica Segmentats weighed 20 pounds. that is 20 pounds of iron over the chest and that is heavy armor by any pre-gunpowder standard.

20 pounds is nothing compared to the hoplite gear of 60 pounds, which still left large portions of the body unprotected. The lorica segmenta was just thin metal sheets overlapping and strapped together to deflect glancing hits and soften the blow of melee blows. Significant amount of protection (and thus weight) is located to the shoulder, reflecting the design to protect against overhead strikes typically delivered by the swords and axes of northern european "barbarians".

The armor may have been able to stop weak hunting bows employed by celtic tribes, but against the powerful composite bows of the Near East and practically any other form of missile weaponry, the legionaire will be counting on his shield more often than his armor.

Even then, the scutum was not impervious to missiles. Arrows from close ranges will easily penetrate and get stuck in the shield and possibly injure the man behind it. It offered decent protection, but it wasn't impervious. There's no doubt that later on most xbows and longbows would be powerful enough to achieve clean penetration at close ranges (<150m) and retain fatal force.

Originally Posted by LostWraith

20 pounds is nothing compared to the hoplite gear of 60 pounds, which still left large portions of the body unprotected. The lorica segmenta was just thin metal sheets overlapping and strapped together to deflect glancing hits and soften the blow of melee blows. Significant amount of protection (and thus weight) is located to the shoulder, reflecting the design to protect against overhead strikes typically delivered by the swords and axes of northern european "barbarians".

All very true, but the armor was also very effective against missile attacks, especially plunging fire.

The armor may have been able to stop weak hunting bows employed by celtic tribes, but against the powerful composite bows of the Near East and practically any other form of missile weaponry, the legionaire will be counting on his shield more often than his armor.

of course, but if the sheild or formation fails and an arrow gets in- its better to have metal between it and the soft chewy parts of the human body.

Even then, the scutum was not impervious to missiles. Arrows from close ranges will easily penetrate and get stuck in the shield and possibly injure the man behind it. It offered decent protection, but it wasn't impervious. There's no doubt that later on most xbows and longbows would be powerful enough to achieve clean penetration at close ranges (<150m) and retain fatal force.

I agree, good thing they wore armor as well. Reports from Carrhae claim the roman hands were nailed to their shields and their feet were nailed to the desert- but little reference of their guts being nailed. Granted a crippled immobile army is as good as dead- archery win But Carrhae was not the typical engagement.

Good Roman commanders demonstrated time and again that they knew how to get their men into melee. Rome started in Italy and reached Basra. The Parthia started in the ruins of the Seleucid Empire (mespotamia and Persia) and lost Mesopotamia.