The Scythian were also only semi nomadic with acess to breed stock from sedentary civilisations. Note that such breeds did not find thier way out of the stans and into the steppes.
No. The Scythian/Sogdian breed did come out of the steepes, The Scythians did selective breeding. Sorry but all domestic sedantary breeds were quite small, and something even the Persians knew when they acquired the Scythian horses. For all their domestication, the Chinese never had big domesticated horses either, they acquired theirs from the Parthians which in turn, was directly descended from the Scythian horses.
Warm climates like the sedantary cultures in the Middle East will not produce large horses by any means. What dictated size is climate, hence why Qin soldiers on the average for example, is taller than Roman soldiers. The colder it gets, the taller and bigger you need to be. Bigger animals has a lower ratio of skin to their mass and weight. Hence they retain heat better. Bigger creatures also store more fat. Coldness makes you taller and fleshier as part of microevolution and adaptation.
You've just introdiced a new element, Han and Parthia vs Rome. The discussion is between Han and Rome. If the teo armies ar emeeting in former parthian territory then that force has bene nuetralised. Also the Parthina empire was numerically tiny and a Han size darmy moving acros sthier lans would be like a locust plague.
The Han do rely on the loyalties of those who came across them. Loyal as meaning, be our tributary or your people get decimated. Parthian empire may be small, but there are also other kingdoms along the Silk Road that can be obliging.
Rome was able to defeat a small empire with less resources, and still have trouble fighting a cavalry army even if that cavalry army has lost some of its touch of its nomadic roots. For the Romans to go deeper into Central Asia, they would have to be fighting the Xiong Nu themselves, and all their associative peoples, the Khirgiz, proto-Turks, proto-Uzbeks, proto-Tajiks, proto-Tibetans (yes they were horse rider once), proto Mongols and the like. Very savage people.
In actuality, if the Romans and the Chinese did meet, they would likely end more as allies, clear the barbarians out of the area and establish a one to one direct trade route with Roman and Han garrisons located all over protecting the route.
Han supply depots end at the Han border. The steppes will not be able to add any thing useful to an army of a couple hundred thousand combatants and camp followers.
The Han border is at the edge of Xinjiang and without clear demarcations, who is to say they're into Afghanistan like their successors the Tangs.
Rome fought more and more vareid foes and sucessfully intergrated them into the fabric of Rome. Only Rome of all the ancient societies can be considered a multi-ethnic nation. The barbarians who finally swarme dher under did not invade to conquer, but to be Roman. Not italian or greek or North African but Roman, it was an ideal as powerful in its day as beign Chinese or Americna is today in our modern world. Rome also understood allie sand how to make them and keep them. Duirng hannibals rampage Rome held on to the loyalty of the Italian citie states during her darkest hours.
More varied foes? But are they tougher? At this point, you are beginning to be ethnocentric.
The Hans literally fought what amount to be the ancestors of these peoples---the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Mongols, Tibetans, the Turks, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Uighyursm, Siberians, Jurchen/Manchurians, Tocharians, Kushans, including various Central Asian indo Europeans that were ancestors of the people living in all the 'stans. I don't think the Han didn't had the excuse to omit fighting anyone people in their borders, and that includes even down to the south, with proto-Thai/Burmeses and Khmer. And the list can go on and on, because what we only know are those that happened to have survived to these ages.
Many tribes, kingdoms and ethnicities have perished and become extinct in all these time, people like the Tanguts (wiped out by the Mongols), whose extinct language provides us third member of the Sino-Tibetan language family besides Chinese and Tibetan. Who is to say that at that time, there were other different Sino-Tibetan speaking ethniticies then.
The current Chinese person today can have his DNA connected with all these peoples, even the Indo-Europeans. You DNA test a Chinese living in Xian, and he or she has genetic connections with people that are Turks or Mongols, while someone living in Shenyang has his DNA connected with the Manchurians, Koreans and other Tungusic peoples.
The Han Dynasty not only conquered, but assimilated. In the end, the Chinese achieved what the Romans and Europeans never did---assimilation of all races and forged into a single national ethnic identity. What the Qin Dynasty did to China, the equivalent had to happen to Europe---defeat of all kingdoms in Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Italy plus others, then force them to live under a single common culture and language under a siingular empire that lasted millenias. A few hundred years later, people do not view themselves as German, Swiss, British or Italian, but simply European.
As for purely military strategy Rome beat every army style ever sent agaisnt her. They may not have had Sun Tzu, but they knew wha tthey were about. From Julius's subverting nand manipualting the Guals, to the use of proxy kings to subvert forgien lands to Agustus attacking by sea and strategically outflanking Antony.
Sun Tzu isn;t more than just tactical or basic strategy doctrines. In it, you also have the basis for---
The concept of Assymetric/Guerilla warfare
The concept of Grand Strategy (talk to Liddell Hart there)
The concept of Mobile Warfare (ala Blitzrieg)
The concept of Psychological Warfare
The concept of Total Warfare (the view of war as a totality that involves the State in all levels from the mundane, to the to the grand strategy).
Acts of genius are often in isolation and may not be repeated. So why do you codify doctrines into manuals. Because you don't want genius to be in the mercy of a lucky individual. You want the advantage of genius put into a book so it can be implemented by all the non geniuses there. You want to systemize genius so it can be consistently and repeatedly executed. That's why having a system beats not having a system at all. In other words, thanks to these manuals, the Han view and execute warfare more professionally in modern terms.
That's why I don't need to bother for names of brilliant individuals. When a society moves pass the need for brilliant individuals to uplift it, when it has a codified system that can repeat success consistently using the rest of its peoples, then that society is more of every means, the more advanced.
Red Herring, However good the Han conscripts are, Roman's are that and much much more. Thier is no substatue for experiance. Those Roman units were volunteers (Rom edid not use conscripts), expertly trained, highly motivated,fought together for years and had a professional officer and NCO corps who came up through the ranks. There is a reason why the late Republican and Early Imperial eras saw Rome trounce every one they came across.
Usually, when you reach to my infantry soldier fights better than yours level, you're into ethnocentric bias. The Romans didn't exactly trounce the Gauls nor Hannibal's army, and as a matter of fact, probably got themselves owned fighting the Celts hand to hand, often leading to changes and adjustments in their armor and shield design.
While Rome was not a true meritocracy when it came to generals and consuls, and did occasionally advanced men like Crassus. It also picked out and advanced those from the patrician class who had real talent. Julius Ceaser, Trajan, Agustus, Pompey, Antony, the Scipios. Constantine etc. It was also possible to break into the patrician and even the imperial class form humble origins. At the lower purely professional ranks it was indeed a metiocracy where a recruit could retire as a centurion or higher if he had what it took.
I am pretty sure, while not better known due to historical publicity, generals like Ban Chao can more than hold their own against any Roman general or consul.
When you are referring to names, then I guess, you don't have a system that prevents the incompetent from leading an army.
Imperial Examination system not only ensures that the educated becomes an officer or an official, but the ethical as well. By forcing the study of not just Confucious' classics, but also the military classics like Sun Tzu (not just Sun Tzu's there are actually seven of Military Classics), you also force a commonality of ethics, values, and doctrines. This gives the Han a clarity of thought---they knew exactly what they were fighting for, and knew with clarity, what they had to exercise to achieve that goal. They are not beholden to such things like warrior creed or knight's honor or bushido code.
And this system works, because it meant a bureaucracy that can operate independently from the top leaderhip even when the top leadership is incapacitated. This system helped ensure the survival of a civilization, and that system lasted right up to 1911. Even then the Mandarin concepts of service to the people are not forgotten and did play in the rapid industrialization of East Asia.
The Han like wise for all the claims about them also ignored the bulk of the talent pool (conscripts) and restricted themselves to the literate. Much like the Romans, the society had its elite and avenues for upward movement.
Excuse me. To an extent you need to be educated to be an officer or official, and true, education means you need a well off family. But not well off families are nobles or land owners. Once you can afford to buy books and be literate (we wonder how many Romans can actually read and write), you are on your way.
Why does it sound familiar?
Because here, for the first time, you have a civilization that values the power of EDUCATION.
You are not top dog because your family owns big land, your family owns a lot of horses, or you have a noble family name. You are an official or an officer of the Han because you are EDUCATED.
I never said that. I said ancietn slingers outranged them, a claim i base not on modern composite materials or gut feelings but on a multitue of ancient sources who are in lockstep agreement on the rane and power issue.
what sources? I never seen or heard anyone that has gut feelings that slingshots can match up to bow and arrows much less crossbows.
A modenr crossbow has about as much in common with an ancient model as an AK-47 ha sin common with a musket.
Sorry but the principles are the same. Only the materials. And you still have your metal triggers, steel instead of bronze, composite instead of wood, carbon fiber in the bow instead of composite layer of sinew, wood, bark, bamboo and bone---all of whom are still carbon compounds anyway, regardless whether its natural or artificial. And best of all, the physics never changed---the power of the bow comes from the human muscle.
If a modern crossbow draws for 300lbs. and an ancient crossbow draws for 300lbs, the kinetics would still be the same.
Slingers required better physical shape, had less volume and got paid mor efor thier services. They were used for the niche they filled just as archers were. Rome had acess to both and finely devloped sence of tactics and continue dot use both, the question begs the answer. Becuase slingers are a very effective military tool.
When you use men with better shape as slingers, that won't be a better appropriate use of resources since the same person, with plenty of muscular power, can be also as soldier or archer.
Tha's where the crossbow has its advantages. They don't have to be the best pick in men. You don't have to need plenty of arm muscles, since you can draw using your legs. In terms of human resources, you can better appropriate the stronger armed men into soldiers or archers.
Crobato, the reason your so difficult to deal with and why I am done replying to you ever again, is this post right here
- Crossbows and bows will outrange slings anytime. Now that slingers are often unarmored, they can be taken out at maximum range.
I have provide sources that were on the scene from thousands of years apart and they all agree slings out range bows. Your putting your opinions ahead of the historical record. That type of deliberate obtuseness has ruined this thread. Your a troll and I am done being yoor sheeple, I'll find another bridge to cross.
What sources? Or did you just ignore my sources. Maybe you have ignored that recurve bows can attain ranges of 800-900 yards (Mongolian archery fests sometimes hit for over 1000 yards), while slings attain what, 200 yards in range and 50 yards possible for penetrating a bronze helmet?
So tell me, then, with your gut instincts and everyone else who are reading this, how slingers can fight archers with laminar recurved bows or crossbowmen?
What's really obstuse is that somehow, throwing a rock via a sling can be as deadly as a weapon that has the range, accuracy, and hitting power of modern gun.
Try slinging a rock yourself, you need your entire body to leverage that projectile into space, while standing up. Sure makes you an easy target. The crossbowman, like any gunman, can take advantage of cover---he can crouch, shoot behind rocks, in circa, use his weapon like anyone with a rifle.
) started to use sea routes once the Parthian empire collapsed and could not control the trade with China any more.