Rome vs Han China

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anthrophobia

New Member
Actually, crossbow bolts of the Han are bronze, not wood. Wooden bolts are not good, as the penetration power of the bolt would be destroyed since a wooden bolt would easily break against armor, even if the point is made of a harder, nonwooden material, it would still be less ineffective than a completely bronze bolt. All in all, heavier bolts are better at penetration, although it does sacrifice range for power.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Actually, crossbow bolts of the Han are bronze, not wood. Wooden bolts are not good, as the penetration power of the bolt would be destroyed since a wooden bolt would easily break against armor, even if the point is made of a harder, nonwooden material, it would still be less ineffective than a completely bronze bolt. All in all, heavier bolts are better at penetration, although it does sacrifice range for power.

That is exactly my point. How much crossbow ammo can one person effectively carry without hindering his mobility. Crossbow bolts are typically 1-2 feet in lenght and about an inch across. Carying 60 is doable, but more than that you begin to see degredation on a soldiers mobility and effectiveness.

So a crossbow man, firing 2 round per minute, has only enough ammo for 30 minutes worth of combat.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Yeah but with brass or cast iron bolts, that can wreak through armor. The comparitive energy of some of the crossbows can be as high as that as a modern 9mm handgun.

Just watching the show "Where did it all came from" from History Channel. The particular show is about firearms and how many of them originated in China. They showed the crossbows, and how the ancient Chinese refined the concept. Some featured among other things, a rifle like barrel, where the bolt is inserted inside, with a slit down the middle where the tension string can move. The barrel greatly increased the accuracy of the bolt. Another innovation is the use of grid lined up on both ends of the weapon---the first ever use of gunsights.

The heart of the crossbow are the precise metal trigger mechanisms. At the time of the Han, the Chinese already invented blast furnaces where they could manufacture these mechanisms in large numbers and low cost (where did we hear that before). At one time, the Han can have as many as 500,000 crossbows, and they issued crossbows to peasants and farmers like the way the US Army issues M-16s to troops. These ancient military industrial complexes also manufactured metal stirrups in mass. The stirrups enabled the Han cavalry to have a much stabler platform when swinging their weapons, firing their arrows or crossbows, travel much farther in shorter time.

They also showed the repeating crossbows and how they work. Essentially, the ancient Chinese invented the magazine, which loads of bolts are placed. The way to use a repeating crossbow is very simple, like you pull it down, aim, then release. It's all very user friendly. An expert user can shoot a bolt a second.

Later the program, when gunpower was invented, the Chinese got more devious, inventing things like MLRS, wooden carts full of large boxes that housed fire arrows---rockets with arrow tips. Thousands of these arrows were shot en masse. There were stuff that resembled grenades, gunpowder encased inside a clay ball, with sharp metal points around it for shrapnel effect. They also wrapped gunpowder packages at the end of arrows, to create a kind of arrow propelled grenade. Later when they invented cannons, they cased gunpowder inside hollow metal balls to create explosive shells. They made gunpowder based booby traps that were ignited using a flintlock mechanism when stepped on---the mine. They built huge metal cannons towed on massive wooden carts called the General cannons, which can range for a quarter mile. At one point, in the Great Wall, as many as 3000 cannons were placed to fend off the Mongols.

One of the chilling effect of all these innovations was that unlike other countries, warfare is quickly democratized in China. Being mass produced and user friendly, any peasant can use these weapons and kill with equal effect any rich noble. The result was that unlike other countries, China never developed a professional feudal or aristocratic warrior class (e.g. knights, samurai, etc,.)
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
The Mongols used to release so many arrows that they would block the sunlight! The Han could do the same, with or without crossbows. the romans would have to use "turtle" every time, making them immobile; when they did advance, many would have been struck in their faces- the shields they carried weren't transparent- in order to see anything ahead, they had to be held below the eye level.
 

silverster

New Member
^^ so does the english longbowmen, but that does not nessassary mean it can penatrate french plate armor (forget what you see on TV, those longbows are shooting at almost point plank range direct towards the placte armor, not the angle shot actually used in battlefields), what we tend to forget is that arrows run out. and you cant get resupplied,during battle usness you can recollect yourarrows from the opponents. English longbowman usually only carries two to three dozen arrows into battle. and so far i am concerned, the Hun crossbow is even less wieldy than the longbow.

Besides, i understand the fact that crossbow is so easy to train, but hink of it as this... Less training = ess morale, run a regiment of Nubian/Sarmitian Cavalry into a regiment of Hun peasants with crossbows, rout is sure to follow.

Another problem is that if the Hun melee troops close in towards the Legions then the crossbows had to stop firing... as we all agree chinese infantry is toast when hand to hand with roman legions.

if chinese cavalry can not flank the Romans big time. i'd say a draw between the two.
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Less training = less morale? Who are you kidding?

That's like saying having a user friendlier interface on a jet fighter means less training and less morale. By god, the pilots of our most modern US jets must suck so badly compared to the pilots flying planes with ugly manual instrument clusters.

Crossbow = user friendly.

Means a lot more people could use it. That means bigger missile armies, bigger overall firepower.

Your archers would be vastly outnumbered by a "proletariat" armed with crossbows, not to mention outranged and beaten in accuracy.

Besides you seem to have no idea what a stirrup cavalry will do to a cavalry without stirrup. Put it this way, that will be like a fighter with missiles and a jet engine fighting a fighter that has propeller and guns only.

Only took composite bow to match a crossbow in penetration power and range, but composite bow was something the Hans also had, but the Romans didn't. Composite bow wasn't widespread in Europe until the medieval period.
 

Obcession

Junior Member
Another problem is that if the Hun melee troops close in towards the Legions then the crossbows had to stop firing... as we all agree chinese infantry is toast when hand to hand with roman legions.

Hasn't your teacher ever taught you how to correctly use "we" in writing? "as we all agree"? Wait wait, who's "we"? I disagree with my honorable opponent.

Chinese armies were extremely hierarchical, allowing many types of formations and good maneuvering capability. Now compare it to the Romans. 3 lines of heavy infantry. Skirmishers in front. Cavalry on the flanks. Such rigidity, according to Sun Tzu, is the bane of an army. Never to let yourself be predictable.

Why do you assume that the Chinese infantry will falter so quickly? Have you any proof?

And as people have pointed out about a million times in the past, Chinese have better metallurgy and more wealth=massed armored and well armed armies.
 

Anthrophobia

New Member
Only took composite bow to match a crossbow in penetration power and range, but composite bow was something the Hans also had, but the Romans didn't.

Actually Rome used a lot of Syrian archers who used composite bows. However, unless if the archer is a complete monster, chances are he/she won't be able to outrange the normal Han crossbow of 360 pounds with or without the composite bow. Only special flight arrows can do that.

Han crossbows go from 2 dan to 10 dan. One dan in the Han period is 60 pounds. 2 dan to 3 dan, or 120 to 180 pound, crossbows means normal crossbows without the belt claw design. In the Han dynasty a normal crossbow is 360 pounds, or 6 dan. 10 dan crossbows would be comparable to a ballista.

the romans would have to use "turtle" every time

A big stereotype of the Roman army. Usually Roman infantry formations are placed very similar to Han infantry formations, excluding the fact that they may use different weapons. Usually the distance between each person is about 2 feet, if I remember correctly.
 

silverster

New Member
Why do you assume that the Chinese infantry will falter so quickly? Have you any proof?

nothing except that they are not professsional soldiers

They are farmers and peasants. Soldiering is not a profession to them. you cannot compare the training of a legionnary to a regular Hun infantry. so what huns have better metals? gauls have better metals than Romans too... look what happened to them...

besides, i am yet to see a chinese regular soldier with a decent helment or a decent shield. The concentrate too much on skirmish rather than shock, not like thats a bad thing but as the old saying goes "when the **** hit the fan" you got to be able to take it.
 
Last edited:

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Here are some of Han's weaponry.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Han China had a core of professional soldiers but the majority were conscripts. Weapon systems that take a long time to master (horse archery, etc) had professionals doing it full time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top