IDonT said:
Fair enough...I was trying to make the point that in a close melee fight, Roman infantry is better than the Han infantry. The reason is two fold: (1) tactics and (2) Gladius. For tactics: using the tower sheild to restrict the room of Dao weilding Han Infantry thereby rendering him unable to effectively hack at the Romans. This is where the Gauls came in, not its military similarity with the Han but how the ROmans overcame an enemy that uses large slashing sword bearers. For the Gladius: tight quarters are excellent environment for someone hiding behind a large sheild equipped with a short stabbing weapon. Thats it.
For your other points let me address them here:
1.) Napoleonic era and US Civilwar era armies have charge an enemy line while being peppered by bullets and cannons, which are a lot more deadlier than 2nd centure BC crossbow bolts. They have kept their discipline, closed with the enemy, and in some cases, broken through. I don't see why the Roman Legions can't do the same.
2.) Flanking, the employment of cavalry are the realm of generalship, which I try not to get into but since the subject is here anyway....the Han Army does not have a monopoly of flanking, Roman can do it too. Cavalry is a little more complicated. I admit that Romans tend to be lacking in this area but they have faced enemies that are largely cavalry oriented. It is up to the general how well he can use his legions to repel a cavalry charge. IT wuld be stupid of him to charge an enemy without having reserves just for that scenario.
3.) As for Pike and spear Han infatry, you have to remember that the Legions defeated a macedonian style Phalanx. Check the battle of Pydna for more info. What I'm saying here is that using a longer reached weapon won't make a difference.
4.) Yes I do believe the Legionary lines will maintain their cohesion at the charge.
5.) Modern riot tactics using the testudo are very relevant in crowd control and non lethal actions. what I was trying to stressed was that these crowding techniques are very useful and are employed today.
Finally, could someone provide a possible Han battle maneuver and provide evidence (as best as you can) on how they can defeat the Roman manipular style warfare. I know crossbows are the main weapon employed, how are they employed.
I still don't see where you are getting at.
The early gunpowdered weaponry may be superior to bows and crossbows in terms of firepower, but they are inferior (and arguably far inferior) in many other aspects, including but not limited to accuracy. Weight was another problem.
Of course, by the time the Napoleonic Wars came around, it improvement somewhat. At least we are not using 12 pound matchlocks any more. Nevertheless, battlefield tactics still involved firing as quickly as possible in the general vicinity of the enemy, reload as fast as possible and do it again.
I would argue that it was only after the percussion lock and later cartriges were invented did the musket match the accuracy of bows. So yeah, the chances of a fatal shot is more likely if it hits, but the chances of hitting reduced significantly compared to the bow and crossbow. I would also like to remind you that during that era, cavalry charge was more common place compared to infantry charges. During the early part of that era, infantry still marched until they saw the white of their enemies' eyes before unloading.
However, all that point is moot. I'm not arguing that men can be trained to charge. What I am arguing is their effectiveness when they get there. During the Civil War, casulties were huge during charges. This would be a signficant problem for the Romans when facing a superiorly numbered Han infantry.
No, the Han do not have a monopoly on flanking, however, they do have a larger and superior (both in training and equipment) cavalry and more advanced tactics to boot. Tend to make things simpler.
I somehow knew you were going to bring the phalanx into question. Once again, we are talking about mixed unit tactics. By the time the Romans came around the phalanx is largely outdated. Unfortunately for the Macedonians and Greeks, they haven't moved with the times. Of course, the problem could be alleviated if they had other squads in support, which unfortunately agian, wasn't the case. So Han armies, as far as tactics go, is light years ahead of the Greeks and Macedons. And so indeed were the Romans, though to a lesser extent.
Trade-offs trade-offs trade-offs. When you maintain cohesion, you sacrifice speed. When you sacrifice speed it means you give the enemies more chances to pepper you with projectiles. Against Han archers and crossbowmen that's deadly. Perhaps you are not demoralized, but you are tired.
Carrying heavy shields to run across the field, even if not facing deadly projectiles is never a good idea when the two sides are evenly matched, and certainly not a good one when outnumbered. And heaven forbid that it rains or that we are not on plain ground. It helped against the Gauls who were undiscipline, but like I pointed out, we can't apply that to the Hans.
And yes modern riot tactics are useful, but once again, I stress that this is mostly against untrained protestors, unarmed at that. Even if we imagine that every other rioter carries a bat or a sledgehammer, boy, those riot shields would be as helpful any more.
Can't give you much on Han tactics without writting an essay. Most (if not all) the information is still paper based, in Chinese at that. Just translating would take time. It's one of those things that unfortunately can't be explained easily unless we are only talking about skin deep.
