Rome vs Han China

Auxilia levy of supporting troops from allied states or non citizens.

from the Imperial era forward axullia were proffesional soilders not allied, allies were allies and may have filled the same role but auxilla themsleves wer eon 20 year enlistments at 1/3-5/6th a legionaires pay.

If we are going to discuss this a sa strategy debate we need some hard numbers. The Han had a standing narmy of about twice the size of Romes i'll take 4 legions (24,000 men) and thier support (24,000 men) and through in 2,000 local steppe allies for 50K that gives the Han 100K.

based on the Terra Cotta pits you have 66,000 foot and 33,000 cavalry

Rome has 24,000 heavy infantry and 7,000 Roman Cavalry (3500 lancers/3500 archers) and 2,000 steppe cavalry, 10,000 javaliners and spearmen, 3,000 archers and 1, 000slingers, 3,000 engineers w/ cart mounted 300 balistae.

I will set up a 3 forward abrest 1 back on the legions so that if my flanks are threatened I can do an echelon movement with that flank and bring it into line with the rear guard forming a 3 sided box (a proper sqaure if both sides fall back) 2/3 rds of the bowmen follow the center legion 1/6th each follows the side legions 5,000 javaliners/spearmen and 800 slingers act as a forward screen with 1,500/100 to each side to refuse my flanks (flankers carry caltrops) I will split my cavlary into 2 detachments of 1750lancers/1750 archers/1000 allies near each side but set back. My mobile artillery will be firing over the tops of the legions and can provide 360 of coverage out to 500 yrds. I will also claim greekfire to set smoke or fires depending on the wind to form barriers.

obviously my goal is to provide a my legionaires a funnel through which they can safely close with your infantry. And yes this means my auxilla are going to take a pounding blocking direct fire as long as possible until they break.

initally my slingers will be at the fore front 100 yrds ahea dof the spears and 200 ahead of the legions as they outrange every one else eon the feld of battle but the seige engines. as the ranges draw in the seige engiens and archers will arc plunging fire into the mix.

Finally once the range is with in 200yrds from the slingers ot the Chinese font ranks the spearmen will advnac eand the slingers will fall back with half the survivors going to either flank. This will also be the time when the army begins to use double time movement.

I dont really expect my javlainers and spearmen to get more than 1 throw at best befr ethey reak, only to hav ethem soak the intial crossbow volleys and screen the advance of the heavies who I expect will be taking plunging fire from the archers.

I have 100% faith that if the legions can close they can smash the Han's foot troops. I also have 100% that I can move faster forward instep than the han foot can in reverse and not instep if they want to maintian chesion and have anychance of reloading. the legionaires javelin throws just before impact will be crucial.

my big concern is on the sides and rear. where I have about 20,000 troops to face 30,000 plus and unlike the infantry fight this wont be on Roman terms.

The pivotal moment in my mindseye will be how long the Han foot can hold. The Roman army needs to break them fast enough to be able to echelon vs the Han cavalry once the Roman screens breakdown. for that reason i will try and rein my own hors ein and use them for short range chaged to try and disrupt any flank or rear attacks, but they are signifigantly outnumbered.

BeeJay said:

Ah ... the strong 'master', 'better' and 'devestating' arguments again. Btw, I did not say that Han would not have skirmishers. The more, the better! Because that only thickens the screen in front of the Han crossbows, denying them a clear target opportunity. You can read anywhere how undisciplined Revolutionary French used such tactics to 'devestate' drilled and disciplined shooters, by charging them out of such a thick screen ... so actually the Han master-skirmishers might well prove devestating to their own crossbows.

Crobato, I would like to see you mention something relevant about the Han tactics instead of countering anything that is not pro-Han with arguments like 'you have an awfully naive view' or 'Han were better because ... they were better.' It would be nice if we can keep an interesting discussion going on, where everybody involved can learn a new thing or two.

BeeJay

Click to expand...

Roll my eyes. Are you always assuming that people fight like they're enclosed in a football field and don't practice flanking maneuvers or don't engage in high ground? Maybe try reading the Art of War and see how the ancient Chinese would actually fight.

Han crossbowmen, like their archers are likely to be situated in high ground and in different positions. That's the normal practice of archery components. That will give them a clear line of sight even if you have your own infantry on the ground. And when you put crossbow formations in different points, you subject your targets from crossfire in different directions, making it very hard to defend against.

The more skirmishers, the better for the Han to pick off for their crossbows and their own dagger axed skirmishers as well as troops with repeating crossbows.

That's a new one ... the military history books I read about them, say that they won their battles by planning and being disciplined. European knight armies were not wiped out by their bows, but by being outmaneuvred, after which their routers were allowed to escape to a killing field.
I.e. discipline, planning and tactics, NOT weapon systems

Click to expand...

There are multiple facets in winning, but I have not seen any book that also credits the Mongols for having superior archery as one of the factors in their success.

Probably we're using different definitions here. To me mass poduction is: one single and identical item being produced in the many thousands, usually in one or only a few places. Cast iron from molds is a good example. Having 1000 blacksmiths across the country make 10 000 swords is not the same.

Click to expand...

As weapons require more sophisticated metallurgy, the more it takes time for blacksmiths to hand make them, and that is why you require a systemic mass production process. The Han can't produce the numbers of crossbow triggers if they had to rely on blacksmiths.

Crobato, I would like to see you mention something relevant about the Han tactics instead of countering anything that is not pro-Han with arguments like 'you have an awfully naive view' or 'Han were better because ... they were better.' It would be nice if we can keep an interesting discussion going on, where everybody involved can learn a new thing or two.

Click to expand...

Like look who is talking about double standards:

I have 100% faith that if the legions can close they can smash the Han's foot troops. I also have 100% that I can move faster forward instep than the han foot can in reverse and not instep if they want to maintian chesion and have anychance of reloading. the legionaires javelin throws just before impact will be crucial.

Click to expand...

Like look who is talking about double standards:

lets look at the mechanic sof the situation shall we

1- it is easier to walk forward than backward

2- it is faster to go forward than backward

3- maximum Han infantry leangth of servive 2 years

4- average leangth of service for the Romans 10 years

5- Han emphasis cavalry and archery

6- Roman emphasis infantry (equipment, training, tactics)

7- Romans march instep allowing massed formations movements

8- Han troops march as a gaggle

So did the Goths, Celts, Franks, Carthagians, and there is nothing ever shown that the Romans are better fighting them one on one.

Roman equipment better than the Han? Dubious.

Tactics better? Ever read the Seven Military Classics?

Saw this in CHF.

Here is Plutarch's opinion about the effectiveness of arrows and armor.



"4And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft. "

[This one shows how skirmishers would fare against archery troops. Does not sound very good isn't it?]

...but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force. 6At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much...

[Sounds like Roman shield and rank formations are not going to do any better...]

...6 Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence...

[The last is clearly showing arrows penetrating through shields and impaling the shields with the arms and hands carrying them.]

uh huh a read on a defeat of one of the most imcompetent generals of all time. Should we also atrribute their defeat to his donning a black robe instead of a purple one?

Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence...

[The last is clearly showing arrows penetrating through shields and impaling the shields with the arms and hands carrying them.]

It shows no such thing Crobato

now re-read it, you cannot take Plutarch at total face value, Roman history specially defeats were as much fiction as fact

Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him through thier inaction that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground with fear, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence...

The Romans were defeat by Crasus being an idiot and the skill of Surena,, not to superior parthian bows and I can prove it

A- Gaius Cassius Longinus, who led the 10,000 Roman survivors later defeated the Parthian king Orodes II in Syria

B- within 200 years Roman forces would sack the Parthian capitol 3 times

The Scutum

The Scutum was laminated wood and ballistically shaped and the Han wer using wounding not piercing arrows, Plutarch's fairy tale does not change the mechanics. you have shown zero evidence the crossbow with a three edged wedged head can penetrate heavy re-infoirced wood with enough force to then also defeat Lorica segmentata.

yet to support my side I offer up the following

1-The scutums effecitveness as a missile defense is proven by the sheilds continued use through out history despite every advance made in archery and the scutum is undoutably superior to later european and Islamic leahter bound plankbased sheilds that themselves provided worthwhile defense vs missiles until the musket.

2- The scutum had ballistic shaping, advanced construction and well devleoped tactics vs missiles showing the Romans understood the problem and applied thier science to solving it.

3- If arrows could reliably defeat sheild walls why did horse archers attack from the side where their arrows would fall on the narrowest part of the enemies force? To bypass the sheilds is why.

4- If arrows or crossbows were the end all and be all of ancient combat why was no army every pure archery, and why were archers always protected by infantry or defensive devices?

5- Why did the Parthians who had a great amount of horse archers lose so often to Rome?

6- Despite many examples of archery from dozens of militiristic cultures Rome stayed with infantry, despite thier proven adoption of other cultures winning weapons and tactics in other areas.

IDonT said:

[...]The Romans used this tactic at Carrhae and lost.

Click to expand...

Yes, but we should stop using strange defeats to characterize an armies performance. At Carrhae the Roman commander did every possible thing wrong he could have done wrong. Overall the Romans outperformed the Parthians in their many battles. It's similarly wrong to dismiss knights' success versus long bowmen, just because one looks at Agincourt, or a pike phalanx' versus Romans because of Cynoscephalae.

IDonT said:

[...]The setting of the battle and the quality of the leadership plays a greater part to who actually wins the battle than arms and armor.

Click to expand...

Of course.

IDonT said:

[...]Having said that, if I was the Han general I would [...]

Click to expand...

OK. As said, I would use caltrops etc to protect my flanks against the cav, screen my heavy infantry against Han missile troops and not let my auxilia walk around in the rear.
Maybe some mixed cav-inf formations on the flank to off set cavalry superiority in case they get thru the caltrops. The cav-inf mix can be quite successfull and was used by the Romans on several occassions.

Re. Han shields: I also found it strange that the terracotta warriors show armor, but seem to lack helmets. Usually it's the other way around: no armor but with helmet. How come? I cannot imagine Han infantry not wearing helmets?

BeeJay

Re. Han shields: I also found it strange that the terracotta warriors show armor, but seem to lack helmets. Usually it's the other way around: no armor but with helmet. How come? I cannot imagine Han infantry not wearing helmets?

helmest of the region and era were felt lined boiled leather possibly with metal caps for re-inforcement

zraver said:

I cannot imagine Han infantry not wearing helmets?

helmest of the region and era were felt lined boiled leather possibly with metal caps for re-inforcement

Click to expand...

Against crossbow bolts and high angled arrows???

BeeJay

yup, boiled leather is nearly as hard as wood and the felt lining acts as a shock absorber, the rounded shape also defelcts. Plunging fire is falling slower and less energetic than a direct shot will travel in a straight line so it has less force so you need less protective streangth.

One reason western infantry was so heavily armored was the investment made in the men wearing it. With years and decades of training under thier belts each man was a critical peace of miltiary equipment. The average Roman legionaire had more years of service than the average Han officer.

In the east, infantry was conscription based (2 years for the Han) and unpaid. becuase of the rapid cycling and turn over of troops each man represented less of an investment by the state that needed to be protected. Metal helms and armor was used just as it was in the west, to protect the men ( in the hans case officers or elite formations) where the state had a real and considerable investment.