The vs game

[darthturtle]

sorry double post

Edited April 4, 2009 by darthturtle

[darthturtle]

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?

His book is abstract so that it can be applied to every situation no matter how weapons and tactics have changed. It can even be applied to running a business or politics!

However a few chapters were notably less abstract, like the chapter on using terrain, the one on espionage and the one on using nature against the enemy

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

Sun Tzu lived in a time where chariots were popular, during the Han dynasty, riders became more popular and became the bulk of cavalry forces. So tactics did changed. However, the famous statesman Wan Anshi once said that the general Han Xin (who played a large role in building the dynasty) "Used only one or two of Sun Tzu's sentences, and still won victories and became famous" This shows that generals still finds his writing useful after all these years.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Even things with espionage and the usage of terrain can be applied broadly.

But that's not to say the Romans/West didn't have their brilliant tacticians either. Sun Tzu is just more famous.

[darthturtle]

Since we can't be sure who will be leading the armies in this imaginary battle, let's just assume that both armies are led by more or less equal commanders, and focus on weaponry and common formations at the time, since a good commander will always defeat a bad one.

[Cassador_Chris]

let's just assume that both armies are led by more or less equal commanders, and focus on weaponry and common formations at the time, since a good commander will always defeat a bad one.

Didn't I say this a couple of posts up? Anyway, I agree with darthturtle that we should assume general equality between commanders for assessing Han and Roman strength.

Furthermore, let us assume that both commanders are rather poor in skill level--simply meaning that they wouldn't innovate and would use 'standard procedure' for approaching any situation.

To spell it out then, lets look at average army size, composition, weapons, and tactics on the battlefield (meaning that siege weaponry or anything that takes a significant amount of time for assembly should be left out).

Oh, and here's a possible battlefield, outside of present day Samarkand, where our two armies could possibly meet.

Maybe yes, maybe no?

Edited April 4, 2009 by Cassador_Chris

[darthturtle]

The picture is a bit too small, is it possible to get a bigger map?

[Cassador_Chris]

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east...8322829-g_6.jpg

Go there for the map, and your mouse cursor should turn into a magnifying glass. Blow up the image really large, and Samarkand is near the top of the map.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Why not just assume some standard Sogdian or Bactrian semi-arid plain?

[Cassador_Chris]

Why not just assume some standard Sogdian or Bactrian semi-arid plain?

That's fine. Most of the area outside Samarkand is just like that, albeit more hilly. I was just assuming a more realistic battleground. But a completely flat plain is actually a better idea, I think. It will keep the Han and Romans on even footing where ever they choose to move.