The vs game

[saxguy]

yep its a debate but its also a game to, just to have fun and learn someting while we are here, whats this game?? well the tipical ''what if'' battle game, like what would happen if X confronted X, so what are the rules:

1.- there will be 2 selected factions or nations or whatever that must match tecnologically.

2.- establish where and why they would possibly confront.

3.- any person can defend there selected nation, and if possible give information on why they would do this or that.

4.- no bashing, a bit of provocative stuff maybe but remember that on internet you cant really tell if its insulting or not.

how this will go out however is up to you guys, personally i propose to give this like i dont know 2 weeks maybe and then make a fictional scenerio on what would happen , and then pass on to the next so i will leave that up to you.

So if we agree on that, i would like to propose on the first match bieng the classic Roman empire at its fullest vs Han empire at its fullest, so if you are interested choose and show your arguments.

[darthturtle]

The Huns rely heavily on calvary, thus their army is highly mobile, which means they can reinforce their troops and strongholds when looking at the big picture, and attack at the flanks and rear in battle

[plumo]

I'd say the Mongol tribes after the conquest of China by Kublai Khan.

The mongolians were known for their ranged cavalry, but they had problems with sieges.

With chinese engineers they constructed siege equipment and they had gunpowder weapons like archaic grenades.

[saxguy]

yeah i made a mistake ooops, im dumb, what i ment is han dynasty from china, after the death of the first emperor qin

[darthturtle]

ok... then I think the Chinese army will win because they have powerful crossbows that can penetrate armor, and cavalry that can flank the infantry heavy Romans

[plumo]

The chinese also come in numbers

And lets not forget experimental firearms

[Cassador_Chris]

The chinese also come in numbers tongue.gif

And lets not forget experimental firearms

The Romans will also come in numbers. I think I should point out that the huge population that we identify with the Chinese these days is actually a much more recent phenomenon. China, especially in its ancient days, had a much smaller population. A census taken in AD 2 reported 57.7 million individuals, while a census from 140 reveals only 48 million. In contrast, conservative population estimates of the Roman empire at its height in the 2nd century place it at around 65 million people.

Also, gunpowder was first invented by the Chinese in AD 850, long after our little scuffle between civilizations.

ok... then I think the Chinese army will win because they have powerful crossbows that can penetrate armor, and cavalry that can flank the infantry heavy Romans

The Romans also had crossbows and cavalry. Sure, hand crossbows weren't widespread until much later, but they still existed (not including, of coarse, the larger Roman siege/anti-personnel crossbows, which were widespread and used to great effect).

So my argument for the Romans wins, right?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Cassador_Chris

[saxguy]

we'll see, well first off the roman were more disciplined than the chinese infantry of the time, yes the crossbows may cause many casualties but its not like they go through like a 50 cal. the scutum may be able to sustain a few arrows of the crossbow, and dont underestimate roman archer auxila which i remember always acompanied a legion, and finaly although the han had way superior cavalry, well let me put it this way, its probable they try to charge the flanks of the cohorts, im sure the archers would pick off a few, then the legionaries would give them a hard time while the roman cavalry auxila charge and corners the han cavalry, of course this is all assumption.

ROMA VICTOR!! <---- wow look at them still, like rocks, now thats discipline

Edited March 19, 2009 by saxguy

[darthturtle]

Well... yeah the Romans were more disciplined...

/search counter-argument

errr... kung fu?

lol most infantry are farmers so almost no discipline, but I doubt the Roman cavalry can fight the Chinese cavalry that was influenced by the nomadic tribes of the north

[Cassador_Chris]

lol most infantry are farmers so almost no discipline, but I doubt the Roman cavalry can fight the Chinese cavalry that was influenced by the nomadic tribes of the north

Maybe. Now I'm no expert, but I thought Chinese foot armies were mostly crossbowmen. That means the Romans, with an army of mostly footmen with ranged pilum, are going to have to advance against powerful, ranged crossbowmen. If you take this further, that means the Chinese will normally get to choose the battlefield, which means a nice steep hill. Frankly, I think it would be like a bunch of swordsmen advancing on a bunch of musketeers--utter massacre.

Also, I don't think all chinese footmen were conscripts. I think I remember reading about the Han armies having large numbers of professional soldiers.

So, like people have been saying, cavalry will be important. I wouldn't cut out the Romans so soon. The Romans have employed some good cavalry units--including Numidians, Gauls, Germans, and Sarmatians. They also have a few 'copycat' units, like the famed heavy cavalry Cataphractoi.

[Belisarivs]

The Romans will also come in numbers. I think I should point out that the huge population that we identify with the Chinese these days is actually a much more recent phenomenon. China, especially in its ancient days, had a much smaller population. A census taken in AD 2 reported 57.7 million individuals, while a census from 140 reveals only 48 million. In contrast, conservative population estimates of the Roman empire at its height in the 2nd century place it at around 65 million people.

Keep in mind, that while soldiers could be recruited from whole China, Romans had IMHO tough times gathering large army.

While Chinese were mostly natives, Roman Empire was mostly conquered region.

[darthturtle]

And I just found out we have MOUNTED CROSSBOWMEN in the Qin dynasty, before the Han! no reason for them not to deploy the MOUNTED

CROSSBOWMEN!!!!!!

Romans better run, then get impaled by bolts of the MOUNTED CROSSBOWMEN!!!

[saxguy]

those d@mn arrows are driving me insane , but none the less you underestimate the legionaries tough to the bone and their training could be almost as brutal as the war itself (no death, but you get the picture), and on contrare Rome would have it easier too get troops and replacements and the chinese would have a harder time recruiting men, why?? well why was it so stable for such a long time? because they had something to offer to the conquered men, you become a soldier for a certain amount of time and at the end of their service they would be granted Roman citizenship and all its privileges, as for the chinese most of the recruited men from conquered territories where forced, and i doubt they would fight at there fullest assuming they didnt try to abandon.

and last but not least remember the quinquereme, i can assume that its a bit easier to replicate crossbows than quinqueremes, i rest my case.

[darthturtle]

I hate you.

wait... searching....

Ah, REPEATING CROSSBOWS.

and the Chinese cavalry defeated Xiongnu, an empire believed to be the same as the Huns in Roman sources

I highly doubt that Roman cavalry will be superior than Chinese cavalry, which defeated an empire which lives off its cavalry

and we also have rotating arcuballistas and catapults

Edited March 23, 2009 by darthturtle

[darthturtle]

No reply

So Chinese win by default right?

[Cassador_Chris]

Again,

Repeating crossbows came after the fall of the Han dynasty.

Also,

I don't see mounted crossbowmen as an improvement over the horse archers of the steppe. Besides, crossbows were usually given to heavy mounted soldiers as a minimal response to true cavalry archers and weren't meant to replace cavalry archers. In fact, they were vastly inferior to cavalry archers.

And lastly:

Keep in mind, that while soldiers could be recruited from whole China, Romans had IMHO tough times gathering large army.

While Chinese were mostly natives, Roman Empire was mostly conquered region.

Okay, well, sure, the Roman Empire had more natural barriers, the Han empire had less. But I don't see that as a recruitment problem. Once you were conquered by the Roman empire, you were 'Romanized' and probably quite often would serve in the Roman forces that conquered you. Differences in culture prior to conquest would have mattered little after conquest.

In addition, don't be so fast to count the Chinese as all 'natives'. China is a huge place, and there are differences in culture throughout ancient China. Sure, not as drastic as what existed in Europe, but I'm quite sure that the southern Chinese didn't really find common kinship with those Chinese from the north. In addition, I don't doubt that Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians, Tibetans, Turks, and the Vietnamese didn't like their conquerors much either.

So, Romans ftw?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Cassador_Chris

[heavy]

actually the romans have some of the best tactics of the ancient world......compared with the chinesse tactics, the romans ere more advanced

[darthturtle]

Repeating crossbows came after the fall of the Han dynasty.

In fact, repeating crossbow has been found in tombs dating as early as 4th century BC, it is only believed to be invented during the three kingdoms era (the fall of Han) because the design was improved by the renowned strategist Zhuge Liang.

So we still have them!

I doubt any close range infantry can stand being fired at by thousands of bolts over and over again (the most common tactic used for repeating crossbows)

swoosh HEADSHOT!!!!

[Cassador_Chris]

actually the romans have some of the best tactics of the ancient world......compared with the chinesse tactics, the romans ere more advanced

How can you say that? What do you know of Chinese military tactics? Do you have examples of Chinese tactics that were inferior to Roman ones, or vise-verse?

You're going to have to do better than that.

So we still have them!

Well, I can't find any completely reliable sources on the internet, but two the sites I came across backed your post, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, most sites pointed out that the so called "inventor" of the repeater probably did not invent it.

Still, repeating crossbows did not have much penetration power or range. One site mentions Chinese soldiers using poison to increase a bow's effectiveness.

So, how much of an advantage is the repeater against Roman armor and Roman pilum? Where in the battle would the repeater be most effective?

I suggest that the Han commander mount these crossbowmen on horses, send them off behind the main cavalry force. If the Han cavalry beats the Roman cavalry on either flank, the mounted repeaters could circle behind the enemy force, dismount, and fire their repeaters at backs of the Romans at close range. That's just a suggestion, though. It may be too complex of a move for soldiers to carry out effectively, or may be negated by strategic reserves in the Roman force, or even by the Roman cavalry or archers.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Cassador_Chris

[heavy]

if you read the roman history, there are various generals, commanders, and empreros with great strategies like caesar,aetius,marcus antonius,pompeius,scipio africanus,claudius nero germanicus,etc.........

one of the strategies was a formation called turttle shell to resist arrows,spears,stones,etc.

and the chinesse crossbows is a great adventage in the battle but i doubt that they can stop various legions

[Cassador_Chris]

if you read the roman history, there are various generals, commanders, and empreros with great strategies like caesar,aetius,marcus antonius,pompeius,scipio africanus,claudius nero germanicus,etc.........

one of the strategies was a formation called turttle shell to resist arrows,spears,stones,etc.

and the chinesse crossbows is a great adventage in the battle but i doubt that they can stop various legions

True that is, heavy. There were truly incredible Roman commanders who used innovative--and indeed, sometimes truly inspirational--tactics and strategy. On the same token, though, there were also many poor commanders who made serious blunders or paraded around very stupidly.

Anyway, the point I was making was this. How can you say the Romans had superior tactics, when we know so little of Chinese tactics? The same reasoning can be applied to: how do you know you're grandmother's chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies ever if you've never eaten any other chocolate chip cookies? You can't. You must try other cookies to determine which ones are the best.

Anyway, I think we should--for the sake of this argument--leave out the individual skill of the commander of either force and assume they have the same skill level. Obviously, a more skillful commander will beat the less skillful one no matter what empire they are fighting for.

Instead, lets try to focus on the types of tactics used by each empire to determine how they might react to different situations on the battlefield. And that requires that we learn something of normal Han tactics.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Cassador_Chris

[Silver]

What about troop morale, available equipment, etc...?

I don't think it's as simple as the better commander...

What about good officers? Motivating the troops and effectively carrying out orders, etc...

It's late and I can barely think but I'll leave you with this Chinese name -

Sun Tzu, I have his book, The Art of War, if you can believe how nerdy I am.

[darthturtle]

Sun Tzu, I have his book, The Art of War, if you can believe how nerdy I am.

That isn't nerdy, that's called being smart - learning from one of the greatest general in Chinese history is going to help a lot. I myself have a Chinese book examining the book in detail, and how his points prove to be true using example from around the world. From battles during the fall of Qin, to the quite recent Gulf War. The scary thing is that there's so many books on that one book alone, it can be counted as a genre itself.

Back on topic, even if the Roman take out their tetsudo formation, Chinese engineering will take care of that.

I don't care how powerful your shields are, they can't block giant rocks hurled across the sky. Not to mention the Chinese have some of the best siege crossbows (ballistas) in the world

[Cassador_Chris]

What about troop morale, available equipment, etc...?

I don't think it's as simple as the better commander...

A good commander would make sure he provided his troops with the best equipment and would ensure that they were in the fighting spirit. Being a good commander means all of these things. Same goes with good officers. Officers fall under the general word of 'commander', but if we take it as meaning 'supreme commander', we can further say that a good commander awards his good officers and demotes his poor ones. So a good commander ensures good officers, though this may not be necessarily true 100% of the time.

Sun Tzu, I have his book, The Art of War, if you can believe how nerdy I am.

I have that book too, though its at home at the moment. In any case though, I think it would be useful to determine to what extent Han generals followed Sun Tzu's advice. In addition, Sun Tzu lived some time before the Han empire, so we need to know if tactics have changed since his time with technology, or if his writings were unappreciated in the time of the Han.

In addition, from what I remember about his book, it was somewhat abstract and not as concrete as to military strategy. For example: "A victorious general wins first and then goes to war." So? What did Han generals do to achieve this? What were their concrete actions?

Obviously, there's a lot of work ahead of us.

[Silver]

A good commander would make sure he provided his troops with the best equipment and would ensure that they were in the fighting spirit. Being a good commander means all of these things. Same goes with good officers. Officers fall under the general word of 'commander', but if we take it as meaning 'supreme commander', we can further say that a good commander awards his good officers and demotes his poor ones. So a good commander ensures good officers, though this may not be necessarily true 100% of the time.

Oh... I guess if you're talking about any who is in a position to command troops it makes sense, I thought you meant higher ranking people who generally control large numbers of troops and assign officers to smaller groups of them.

I'm too tired to disagree with you, especially on the equipment issue... I stayed up late and had to wake up early to finish writing a paper for a political science class.

A good commander or even a good leader of a state does not always have access to the best equipment and morale of troops is something that a commander can't always ensure.

I wouldn't be surprised if good commanders were sometimes forced to take on children from families who are in a more privileged position.

Anyways I think it's fair to say that there are many things you have to look at and it isn't as simple as X commander had more victories therefore he is better.

And while Sun Tzu is really abstract and general in his comments there are still many that are very practical. I haven't read it in a very long time but I do know he addresses tactics and espionage and all that good stuff.