Rome vs Han China

Weaponry of the terracota army. (scroll down)





Ji is a weapon with a steel or bronze tip mounted on the end of a long shaft, next to which is attached a curved blade. Because of the attachment of the curved blade, the weapon can be used to both stab and slash. The shaft of ji used in chariots is longer than those used by infantry and cavalry. When two curved blades are attached on opposite sides of the tip, the weapon is referred to as double ji.

Ji was first used during the Shang Dynasty (17th century BC-11th century BC), when it was made of bronze. It was popularized during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770 BC-256 BC), when it was made of steel instead. By the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD 25), it fell out of use in war, and by the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420-589) it was replaced in its entirety by qiang (spear). Afterwards, it was used only as a weapon carried by ceremonial guards and as a weapon for martial artists.

Whoops.

I just saw a tv show and it raise some questions about the effectiveness of the missle weapons.

anyone saw the first eposide of Battlefield Britain, there we see the presenter used a Roman Scropion (Ballista), which I would assume to be more powerful than a Chinese crossbow, just by the sheer size of it. the presenter of the show shot a bolt at a piece of wood (bare wood, about 5mm in width) at about 15 meters, the bold struck and penetrated the wood but it was stuck there the bolt did not go through.

That experiment raises question about the effectiveness of the crossbows... if a Ballista could not hurt the person on the other side of the wood, what can? I mean the roman Scutum is about 5mm but is curved with leather skin attached to reinforce it...

On top of that, even if the bolt go through the shield, would it still have the ballistic properties to cause any damage? So far i understand ,crossbow was ditched in favor of the firearms is because until the introduction of firearms, what ever the objectile was thrown at the enemy, once it contact any object, it does not hold the ballistc properties or the concentration of momentum/force to cause any damage. so if the best of the medieval crossbow bolt would to struck just a moderate shield, it would lack the momentum to damage the plate armor of 13th century knight, th is, IF the bolt actually penetrates the shield.

What was the bolt made out of?

basically a medieval crossbow bolt, but a bit larger and heavier.

If it were made out of wood, it would be lighter, but would also have more difficulty penetrating wooden shields. A completely copper bolt is just a material short of being a miniaturized modern APFSDS.

Anyways, this matter would be quite simple to resolve. Anyone interested in fabbing/acquiring a few replica Roman shields and a replica Qin-dynasty crossbow? Then we load the Qin-dynasty crossbow with a copper bolt and see if it can penetrate the Roman shield at various distances.

Inst said:

[...] Then we load the Qin-dynasty crossbow with a copper bolt and see if it can penetrate the Roman shield at various distances.

Click to expand...

That gives you the theoratical capacity in ideal circumstances. Then add battlefield parameters: shield angled (shot deflects), fatigue - hurry - aiming errors (shot falls short, overshoots, ...), timing (waste ammo on that enemy that might just be the screen), who is aiming at what (40 bolts in the same guy, another 40 woosh thru the open space between him and his neighbors), etc.
And if it penetrates, will it travel thru and wound the body behind, or remain stuck and only bruise the shield bearer's arm?

They will be deadly against unprotected foes (like horses), but with armored infantry, it's more their psychological effect that should be used (actually that's also the main effect against horses), and the threat of their effect if unprotected. So they will be useful to channel the actions of the enemy up to a certain point (and protect your own flanks against their cavalry).
On the other hand, what will those crossbow shooters do / think if they see that their withering fire has no visible effect on that slowly approaching glittering wall of shields, helmets and spikes? That is, if they see any at all, as probably the Roman screen can keep them unaware of what is coming until the last 50-100 paces. And from 30 paces (correct?) the Romans - already trotting - will hurl their light pila, shortly followed by their heavy, then the contact shock.
Of course, the Han commander will have changed his crossbows shooters for his own heavies by then ... hopefully.

Must be very interesting to see, though not from too close please.

BeeJay

What's the movement speed of Roman Legionnaires anyways? Would be interesting to know how many volleys a crossbow troop could launch before the Legionnaires enter melee.

And wouldn't it be a given that crossbow troops move faster than Legionnaires, given that they're lightly armored? If unable to Parthian Shot, they would at least be able to retreat.

The Roman legions could sustain 20 miles (32km) a day. I do not know how fast they could advance and maintian formation. In the end it wont be about missiles or heavy infantry or cavalry. It will be about the commanders. The side with the commander best able to use thier streangths agaisnt thier enemies weaknesses will win. Sun Tzu vs Scipio Africanus or Julius ceaser and all bets are off. Sun Tzu vs a non legendary general or vice versa and the world class commander will win.

silverster said:

I just saw a tv show and it raise some questions about the effectiveness of the missle weapons.

anyone saw the first eposide of Battlefield Britain, there we see the presenter used a Roman Scropion (Ballista), which I would assume to be more powerful than a Chinese crossbow, just by the sheer size of it. the presenter of the show shot a bolt at a piece of wood (bare wood, about 5mm in width) at about 15 meters, the bold struck and penetrated the wood but it was stuck there the bolt did not go through.

That experiment raises question about the effectiveness of the crossbows... if a Ballista could not hurt the person on the other side of the wood, what can? I mean the roman Scutum is about 5mm but is curved with leather skin attached to reinforce it...

On top of that, even if the bolt go through the shield, would it still have the ballistic properties to cause any damage? So far i understand ,crossbow was ditched in favor of the firearms is because until the introduction of firearms, what ever the objectile was thrown at the enemy, once it contact any object, it does not hold the ballistc properties or the concentration of momentum/force to cause any damage. so if the best of the medieval crossbow bolt would to struck just a moderate shield, it would lack the momentum to damage the plate armor of 13th century knight, th is, IF the bolt actually penetrates the shield.

Click to expand...

You're using wood. Crossbow bolts are either copper, brass (most common), iron or wood (for repeater crossbows).

I've seen another TV program where the Romans laid seige on a castle defended by British Pagans, and the Romans were knocking off the defenders off the castle walls well out of the Pagans' archer range.

Crossbow troops could certainly launch a few more volleys against Legionaires. They themselves have been very effective against much faster Hun cavalry.