[quote]Roman and Greek ballista/catapult are weapons using torsion power to shoot stones and bolts, and operate on completely different mechanicalI am not talking artillery but individual sied crossbows.principles than a tension crossbow in Asia.....
The late Roman army - Google Books
Some posters here think the solid bronze bolts found with the terra cotta army are in fact the actual rounds used.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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
No disagreement here, I've been saying the armor protection of the hopilites would not be rivaled until the late middle ages.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.