1.2 - further and farther, the Qin Dynasty??

[irishguy1]

You guys do a wonderful job for giving us this free mod, it is literally the only thing I play on my computer nowadays, but I was wondering if you we're taking it any further. I read somewhere and maybe I'm wrong that there is a 'hard-coded limit' on the number of provinces one can make for the game. I mean, there has to be someone somewhere who would be able to help crack it, that would be the first ggreat step for 1.2 and beyond. I'm writing this thou because I had the idea that maybe someday you guys could include in it all the way to China and the Qin dynasty, and really just how epic of a game that would be. I dunno maybe it's just a dream that can't be done any time close to now, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

And once again you guys [ and maybe girls? ] do a wonderful job.

[TWFanatic]

There is a hardcoded limit on provinces, hardcoded limit on factions, hardcoded limit on DMB enteries (units that can be incorporated)--the list goes on and on. EB has fulfilled every hardcoded limit I know of. Besides, the Qin Dynasty was founded several decades after the start of EB I believe.

Sorry if I just crushed your dreams.:smash:

[Sir Edward]

sorry but many intelligent people have tried and failed to find away around the hard code limit of 200 provinces. Best just to accept you will never see the Romani swimming in the Yangtze. And anyways the territories of India would be much closer and had a much larger impact on factions in the EB realm than China ever did in this time period. I really don't understand the amount of sinophilia on these forums when the diverity of peoples allready present with in the map.

[teh1337tim]

in the time of the start of EB
the warring states was hampening
it was between the Han Wei , Qin, Shu, Yan, Jian and some other with a lot of city states
TBH
itd be quite intersting but you would need to create an new engine and such to incorperate all of ancient world if u want to have China and rome

btw
Qin dynasty only lasted 20somthing years before rebels destroyed it and founded the Han Dynasty
(500+ years...righ?)
intesrting
but im pretty sure if it does get made somehow into a region in EB
itd just steamroll everyone
(at the time of EB, pop is certainly over 10 mil in ancient china)

:D

[||Lz3||]

we have a mod in progress about that remember? Asia Ton Barbarum (AtB) , but it looks like they dont have many members , so it might take a while :sweatdrop:

[satalexton]

hmm i thought asia ton barbarorum's got nothing to do with china....

Irishguy, if you want to see china so much, y dunt you try to start another EB spin off...er..like "Sina ton barbarorum"? ^^;;

[keravnos]

That would be "Kina ton Barbaron"

(Κίνα) being the greek word for china after it was unified by the Qin, the land of "Seires" or "people of the silkworms"

[Hax]

What actually were the relationships between the Hellenic states and the Chinese? How much did they know of eachother?

[satalexton]

icic, thanks for the correction kev.

[Che Roriniho]

What actually were the relationships between the Hellenic states and the Chinese? How much did they know of eachother?

I know they traded a fair amount, plus later on when bit's of the Hellenic powers were repeatedly pwned by China (Indo-Greeks were destroyed by them).

[satalexton]

D= but thats cuz they got greedy and decided to rob the Han envoy instead of trading...

here's an excerpt of shiji:

...遂 不 肯 予 漢 使 。 漢 使 怒 ， 妄 言 ， 椎 金 馬 而 去 。 宛 貴 人 怒 曰 ： 「 漢 使 至 輕 我 ！ 」 遣 漢 使 去 ， 令 其 東 邊 郁 成 遮 攻 殺 漢 使 ， 取 其 財 物 。 於 是 天 子 大 怒 。 諸 嘗 使 宛 姚 定 漢 等 言 宛 兵 弱 ， 誠 以 漢 兵 不 過 三 千 人 ， 彊 弩 射 之 ， 即 盡 虜 破 宛 矣 。 天 子 已 嘗 使 浞 野 侯 攻 樓 蘭 ， 以 七 百 騎 先 至...

...漢無攻我，我盡出良馬，姿所取，而給漢軍食。即不聽我，我盡殺善馬。

I'm not a very good translator, but this is basically what happened:

Wu-ti's initial attempt to trade the Celetial Horses with gold coins was rejected by the king of Fergana and the Han envoy sent for the negotiation was murdered and stripped. When the news arrived Chang'an, Wuti was furious and decided to take them by force. He appointed Li Guangli to lead the expedition. In 104 BC, Li Guangli set off with 3000 soldiers. However they were not able to defeat Fergana and forced to retreat to Dunhuang. There Li Guangli with only few remaining men waited for the reinforcements from Wu-ti. In 102 BC, Wu-ti embarked the second military campaign in an army of 60,000 men marching out towards Fergana. They reached the capital and successfully besieged it. The Han army cut off their water supply with sappers and kill many men that tried to sally forth. In the end the inhabitants could stand no more, killed their king and surrendered. They returned to China with a great haul of the famous Fergana steeds. Fergana provided them with the best celetial horses as well as 3000 ordinary stallions and mares.

[Ludens]

I'd love to see the Chinese as well, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

The problem is that there was almost no military contact between China and the west, and for good reasons. The geographical barriers between them are very difficult to traverse for anyone who isn't a steppe nomad. Merchant caravans had a difficult time following the Silk Road, so how much harder it would have been for an army? If it did get through, they would have been so exhausted that the defenders had a field day. But even supposing that they somehow got through and managed to defeat the defenders, the attacking still would be completely isolated with limited communications and no chance of reinforcements. In one word, it's impossible. I think the team was right at putting the edge of the map where it is.

Off course, there is no real way of simulating this with the R:TW engine, so if you are going to include the Chinese, expect to see armies marching up and down the Silk Road like it was the Persian one. For these reasons, China will not be included even if there were no hardcoded limits. Incidentally, hardcoded limits cannot be changed without reverse-engineering the source code and changing the .exe file. This is illegal however, as the .exe file is essentially the game itself, and SEGA will not look kindly upon any attempt at distributing altered .exe files.


I know they traded a fair amount, plus later on when bit's of the Hellenic powers were repeatedly pwned by China (Indo-Greeks were destroyed by them).

Er... That where the Yuezhi, not the Chinese. There was a Han army sent to Sogdiana IIRC, but they were there to harry the nomads, not to conquer.

[Connacht]

However, there is no way to simulate a Sino-Roman conflict in a campaign - just custom battles, but why using a slot for a faction that will never be used in the campaign?

Not counting the fact that nobody would be interested in doing a war against a VERY FAR nation which has a few things to do with your one and that you may trade with, instead staying both alive and in peace... an attempt to invade Europe by China or Asia by Romans would be a logistical suicide due to the extremely long distance and the hostile territories in between.
The ways to go in a place or in the other one are four:

1) through Asian steppes. Well, if you think that a lot of armies would march through this land without suffering heat, lack of supplies, attacks by the nomads, exhaustion... you may just send only one cavalry-based army against those nomads, as Ban Chao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Chao) did, but going further? Unfortunately no. Unless you do a reform so that your empire will become itself a large nomadic horde, then you may conquer the plains like the Huns or the Mongols.

2) through the Himalayan mountains. Only one word: ROTFL.

3) through India and then Indochina. But the first step is to conquer and fully mantain in order one of the most populated regions of the world (I don't think that local rulers would allow your armies to pass and resupply for a campaign in the far west/east), which may be as hard as defeating the steppe nomads. Then you'll have to march through jungle - and don't forget the guerrilla tactics that local soldiers may use.
Will your legionaries stay alive in enough numbers to start the invasion of China (or the opposite)? I think that the answer isn't very good for an hypothetical general that is attempting to cross the Indus or the Ganges. Even an Eastern Greek or an Eastern faction may be interested in India but completely reject any idea of attacking the Far East.

4) through the ocean, from the Red Sea/Persian Gulf to the Chinese sea. However, ancient ships weren't enough advanced to perform a so long, riskful travel. Besides, loaded troops will suffer many typical diseases that even the Portuguese travelers encountered... it would be a useless, suicidal trip.

And even if you would be there, you'll be alone. Reinforcements will take a looooong time to arrive in enough numbers, unrest in occupied lands will harass your troops as well as unkown diseases, you'll have no possibilities to communicate with your homeland, you'll have to rely only on yourself and your limitated supplies and unhappy, exhausted soldiers.

[keravnos]

What actually were the relationships between the Hellenic states and the Chinese? How much did they know of eachother?

Chinese knew of the Greeks in Ferghana valley (where Alexandreia Eschate is located) and called it Da Yuan, meaning "Great Ionia". Ionians or Yona( in persian) or Yavana( in Sanskrit) were a subtribe of the Greeks who lived in the western shores of Asia Minor. After the failed Ionian rebellion (which also led to the Persian wars between Achaimenid Persia and the greek city states) the surviving rebels were sent to Baktria mostly (Alexander found Greeks already living there when he invaded) and a few to India (Panini's grammar of Sanskrit mentions an example of a Yavana a century before Alexandros reached India).

-It has also been suggested that present day Begram in Afghanistan was originally Pergamon named as such by the Ionians of Pergamon resettled there-

Now back to the chinese and definite interactions between them and the Bactrians/IndoGreeks, well the answer is that all evidence pointing to that direction are inconclusive, but they do exist.

-IndoGreek coins that used a chinese analogy in their material.
-Many statues/artefacts in present day China which demonstrate that there was a definite connection between Bactria and Qin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampul_tapestry
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UrumqiSoldier.jpg

There was also some questions as to whether there was some influence in the creation of the
Terracota army guarding First emperor Chi Huang Ti or Shi Huang Di (sorry for the incorrect spelling, not a Chinese speaker) had anything to do with Greek sculpting and its techniques. Especially so, as the army was painted in very bright colours,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Terracotta_colour.jpg
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TerraCotta_Color_and_Detail.JPG
exactly as ancient greek statues were. The whole issue is under debate of course, unless something concrete can be found.

So far as the Heavely horses incident is concerned, Tarn thinks that the city that was besieged wasn't Alexandreia Eschate but Cyropolis, the easternmost city founded as a guardian to its empire byAchaimenid king Cyros the great (Kurush in Persian). By that time it wasn't greek controlled, it was probably been held by a Kushana ruler, but Greeks did exist there in substantial numbers, and what the defenders did (in terms of besieging tricks) was deffinitely something that Greeks would do in case of siege... meaning building a second wall in the inner city if the first one would be undermined, and so forth.

[Jolt]

As for translations of Chinese characters into Wade-Giles/Pinyin, I first one stays more true to how a Chinese word is said. For example, Mao Tse Tung was told exactly that way by the Chinese. With Pinyin (Which curiously, I use more), it is now Mao Zedong. A stupid thing which happened on one of my history exams is that I wrote Mao Zedong on it's most modern form, and whoever corrected it underlined the name as if it was incorrect. That prompted my request to re-correct my exam.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think these maps will convince everyone of the reasons why there will not be any China:

http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.nationalgeographic.com/resources/ngo/maps/view/chinam.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map08ch.htm

[satalexton]

xD just china itself would take more than half the settlement slots....like i suggested be4, make a fan-spin off instead.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That, and the ~7 factions which are of greater power in 272BC. than... say the SPQR. :rolleyes:

[konny]

Yes, with the addition of China and all possible important factions between the Atlantic and the Pacific we would have to reduce the number of factions in Europe to two: "Celts" and "Greeks".

[satalexton]

not to mention that the RTW engine would do a lousy job in representing chinese warfare properly....

[brymht]

I think China would really only be done justice if someone were to make a total war game based off the warring states in China, Japan, the Eastern Steppes all the way down to Indochina. Really, there is so much going on in this region and so much there, that it would need its own mod entirely.

HOWEVER, if someone WERE to create this game, the western most boundery would probably have to be a Bactrian faction. And that would be cool.......

[Majd il-Romani]

did the Romans know about China, Japan, India, and other eastern powers and vice versa?

[Cimon]

did the Romans know about China, Japan, India, and other eastern powers and vice versa?

If memory serves, I seem to recall that the Romans and the Han dynasty exchanged an ambassadorial visit of some sort during either the time of Marcus Aurelius or Antonius Pius. The details escape me at this point, but that would imply that the Romans had at least some vague concept of what was out there. Someone with more knowledge than I can probably flesh this out a bit more.

[konny]

did the Romans know about China, Japan, India, and other eastern powers and vice versa?

Certainly they knew a lot of India. They also had (little) contact with Eastern Asia by trade. I recall to have read about Roman coins being found in places in Indochina. Roman merchants definitly reached China too, of course only in very small numbers, probably by ship from Eygpt via India.

Some say there had been a Roman colony in Western China founded by POWs of the Battle of Carrhae (53 BC) who were moved to the far east by the Parthians and somehow later became Chinese mercenaries. It is more likely that this settlement was an Indo-Greek outpost on the Silk Route, if any European colony existed out there at all.

China in return knew of Rome (Daqin) and that she was the leading power in the West ruling over hundreds of fortified towns and dozends of minor kings.

But the Parthians blocked as much of the direct contact as possible because they lived well from the East-West trade.

[satalexton]

I have a book that describes the arms and tactics of the Qin army during the late warring states. Of course, it's based on what's excavated so far from the terracotta army (they say only half at most is uncovered so far), so the whole picture is still a mystery. I'll translate and summerise bits of it if you are interested =]

[konny]

Yes. please do. I would like to learn about the differences between China's army and those of the EB factions.

[MeinPanzer]

I'd love to see the Chinese as well, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

The problem is that there was almost no military contact between China and the west, and for good reasons. The geographical barriers between them are very difficult to traverse for anyone who isn't a steppe nomad. Merchant caravans had a difficult time following the Silk Road, so how much harder it would have been for an army? If it did get through, they would have been so exhausted that the defenders had a field day. But even supposing that they somehow got through and managed to defeat the defenders, the attacking still would be completely isolated with limited communications and no chance of reinforcements. In one word, it's impossible. I think the team was right at putting the edge of the map where it is.

Off course, there is no real way of simulating this with the R:TW engine, so if you are going to include the Chinese, expect to see armies marching up and down the Silk Road like it was the Persian one. For these reasons, China will not be included even if there were no hardcoded limits. Incidentally, hardcoded limits cannot be changed without reverse-engineering the source code and changing the .exe file. This is illegal however, as the .exe file is essentially the game itself, and SEGA will not look kindly upon any attempt at distributing altered .exe files.


I can't understand this line of reasoning... including China in a map with the rest of the west is no more unrealistic than including the Iberians in the same game map as the Bactrians. Sure, it would be unrealistic for the Chinese to march on the Seleucids, for instance, but then again, it's just as unrealistic for the Ptolemies to march on Carthage, or the Macedonians to invade Iberia. Besides, within the game numerous mechanisms could be put in place to prevent the Chinese spreading west too easily (the sheer distance, for one).

IMO, the ultimate would be for a team like EB, if not the EB team itself, to create an engine for their own game in which they can simulate the entire old world on the scale of RTW.


Now back to the chinese and definite interactions between them and the Bactrians/IndoGreeks, well the answer is that all evidence pointing to that direction are inconclusive, but they do exist.

-IndoGreek coins that used a chinese analogy in their material.
-Many statues/artefacts in present day China which demonstrate that there was a definite connection between Bactria and Qin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampul_tapestry
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UrumqiSoldier.jpg

How does the Tuanchang bronze figurine indicate links between Bactria and Qin? Even if it were indicative of Greek influence in the Tarim basin (which it is not), these only demonstrate links between the settled peoples of the basin and the west, peoples who also had contact with the Chinese but who were not Chinese themselves.


There was also some questions as to whether there was some influence in the creation of the
Terracota army guarding First emperor Chi Huang Ti or Shi Huang Di (sorry for the incorrect spelling, not a Chinese speaker) had anything to do with Greek sculpting and its techniques. Especially so, as the army was painted in very bright colours,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...tta_colour.jpg
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...and_Detail.JPG
exactly as ancient greek statues were. The whole issue is under debate of course, unless something concrete can be found.

There had been a tradition in China for a century or so before the burial of Shi Huang Di of painting miniature terracotta figurines in bright colours. Analyses of the actual pigments used show them to be different in many ways from western varieties (Egyptian, Greek, and Near Eastern). To argue that these statues are indicative of links to the Greeks is absurd, and makes about as much sense as arguing for a link between China and the Greeks because both used swords.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Sure, one huge mape, ranging from Iberia to Japan would be fun, but with the limitations of the engine, the huge size and diverity of the regions that would have to be added, and the gargantuan workload it would result in for the modders, having to do meticulous research, modeling and scripting, it seems quite impossible. One can always hope that ETW's engine will be able to support it, but as clearly stated in the FAQ, it is at this point not possible to guess wether there will be an EB3 for that engine or not. (I'll keep my fingers crossed, though:yes:)

[satalexton]

Actually Konny, to make things simple, y don't you open a thread and throw me questions, and I'll try to answer them...

...don't expect me to be able to give you everything tho, for I only know as much as the amount of info i can dig up, and akin to the spirit of EB, i don't make assumptions. =]

[Urnamma]

Asian (Chinese and Japanese) warfare from the 'ancient' period up through the 19th century largely consisted of individual duels on the battlefield. Properly speaking, the Chinese really don't stand a chance against most of the factions depicted in EB because of how they fought. Only in massed archery could they achieve parity, but once the melee was joined...

[satalexton]

er......which asian movie did u get that idea from mate? ^^;

[Jolt]

er......which asian movie did u get that idea from mate? ^^;

I would very likely think of around Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where it focus on duels between Generals and whoever lost/died 98% of the time lost the battle/had to retreat before massive casualties.
That and Zhuge Liang waving his fan and *insert clever ploy here* took care of the opposing army/general.

[keravnos]

How does the Tuanchang bronze figurine indicate links between Bactria and Qin? Even if it were indicative of Greek influence in the Tarim basin (which it is not), these only demonstrate links between the settled peoples of the basin and the west, peoples who also had contact with the Chinese but who were not Chinese themselves.


There is a direct quote saying that they did reach up into the lands of the Seres. (greek ΣΗΡΕΣ=silworms or (the people of) silkworms, ΣΗΡΟΤΡΟΦΙΑ=raising silkworms so that they can be turned into silk
http://www.souflisilk.gr/soufli/?cat=9)

Seres has long been suggested to be some Desert nomads intermediaries between Bactrians and Chinese. However those Nomads didn't have silkworms or used them to make silk, the Chinese did. So, an hypothesis that Bactrians actually reached china, or even Qin its westernmost Kingdom at the time can be considered, especially in view of the other finds in my previous post.


...In short, Apollodorus says that Bactriana is the ornament of Ariana as a whole; and, more than that, they extended their empire even as far as the Seres and the Phryni.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Strab.+11.11.1

So far as greek influence into Qin and the Terracota army is concerned, it might be absolutely nil. It might not. I just established the two facts both sculpting techniques had at the time. Realism and very liberal usage of colours. I also posted an opinion that I read somewhere, which did wonder about a relation, any relation between the former and the later. I fail to see the excitement in your post. There is a definite link between Hellenistic art and Hinduistic as well as Buddhist art.



It may be recalled that all these dynasties began their careers in the Indian sub-continent from the regions in the northwest that had witnessed considerable penetration of Greek influence from at least the fourth century B.C. Barring sculptural representations of popular gods, goddesses, demi-gods, vegetative and fertility divinities such as yakshas and yakshis, the genesis of anthropomorphic representations of major Indian deities - both brahmanical and non-brahmanical - is invariably traceable to Greek and Roman influences located in that region.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2011/stories/20030606001308400.htm

In that light, questions must deffinitely be asked about whether or not there was some interaction, any interaction between Greek art and the art of Qin. Especially so, when under Greco-Buddhist art greek depictions of certain themes are reproduced even up until now in all of the Buddhist world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

Especially interesting is the evolution from greek wind god from Hadda in 2nd cent. CE to the Wind God from Kizil, Tarim Basin fresco (7th century) to the 17th century Japanese wind God Fujin

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos7/WindGodsBoreasprobably.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WindGods.JPG


and the next one which I believe you will easily discover on your own... A man with a large club..
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos7/HeraclestoShukongoshin.jpg


Iconographical evolution from the Greek god Herakles to the Japanese god Shukongōshin. From left to right:
1) Herakles (Louvre Museum).
2) Herakles on coin of Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius I.
3) Vajrapani, the protector of the Buddha, depicted as Herakles in the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara.
4) Shukongōshin, manifestation of Vajrapani, as protector deity of Buddhist temples in Japan


As you see there is deffinite influence of greek art to the religious art of Buddism and Hinduism. The question really is whether it started as early as 220 BCE. The big majority of scholars says no, and as such until any contradicting evidence is found they are right.

Personally I would love to have the whole world in a game like RTW, with 100 factions and unlimited units. In this way we would be able to have not only Qin and Zhou but also all the other states of that period. The problem is that it would take a team like EB to do it, and to create EB1 it took 4 grueling years. I don't want to think how much the whole world would take.

[satalexton]

Perhaps the Qin learnt the pike squares from the Bactrian sources. The Pi and the macedonian sarrisae are similar in that they're used in blocks to anchor a battle line...

[teh1337tim]

nope chinese pike formations may look similar but is actaully not influenced by macedonian phalanx system (hell they were using it before 500bc.. if i remember correctly)
o and about chinese getting owned by any western nation...
FYI from what ive read (and i read A LOT of both roman,greek, persian -> japanese chinese etc)
China would have multiple imperial armies that can number from 500,000 (+ a lot more slaves) to as low as 10,000.

What i really want to see is the chinese heavy calvary soldiers vs any hellenic or steppe horsemen...
btw... remember china in ancient times were ruled by nobles and warlords who in turn is loyal to an empire or strong leader
(these men could also summon armies if needed)

Lets just say... this thread will turn into another Chinese vs Roman/Hellenic army thing
lets get back on topic guys!
:)

[AlexanderSextus]

Asian (Chinese and Japanese) warfare from the 'ancient' period up through the 19th century largely consisted of individual duels on the battlefield. Properly speaking, the Chinese really don't stand a chance against most of the factions depicted in EB because of how they fought. Only in massed archery could they achieve parity, but once the melee was joined...


Was Kung Fu used during the EB timeframe? It would seem that if it was, a chinese army using it would be quite formidable. Hell, general Yue Fei trained his famous Rattan Shield's so well in the art of Hsing-Yi that they were able to defeat the MONGOLS. Then the emperor got jealous and killed him. :wall: Guess we know what happened after that.

What i'm trying to say is, Were Roman methods of warfare truly superior to Chinese ones?

Chinese had crossbows too. That would put them far ahead of romans in battlefield effectiveness. Especially if the Chu Ko Nu was used during the EB time frame. :yes:

[AlexanderSextus]

multiple imperial armies that can number from 500,000


also, is it true that the chinese were the only people in antiquity that were able to effectively field a military force greater that 20,000 men?

[AlexanderSextus]

one of the reasons i think that the idea of having a EB-like TW game that encompasses the whole Ancient world would be cool is that lets say you are the romans, and you create the pax romana, one of the things you would be able to do could be opening up diplomatic relations with the "Seres" and get CRAPLOADS of mnai from the silk trade.

Hey, i mean, Dont you get an Envoy from the Han sent to your court in EB 1.1 if you play as Pahlava?

[satalexton]

god I'm getting sick of this, chinese armies in the acient times had NOTHING to do with kung fu...they resemble NOTHING like dynasty warriors.... in fact they resemble NOTHING like you ever saw on tv.

god, this is even worse than LS believers...

...sry if i sound harsh, but the amount of ignorance does tick me off.

I remember there are a few Ospray books around that does a decent job in portraying things properly, tho abit terribly outdated.

[AlexanderSextus]

Roman merchants definitly reached China too, of course only in very small numbers, probably by ship from Eygpt via India.


So how come we dont have roman records that say things like "the seres live in funny pointy houses (pagodas) and their eyes look funny"? (i know that sounds bad to say but i really dont doubt the romans would've said that)

[AlexanderSextus]

Was Kung Fu used during the EB timeframe?

See, satalexton, Thats a legitimate question. A simple No would have been a lot more polite. Martial arts did exist in china before kung fu.



ccording to legend, the reign of the Yellow Emperor (Huangdi, traditional date of ascension to the throne, 2698 BC) introduced the earliest forms of martial arts to China.[4] The Yellow Emperor is described as a famous general who, before becoming China’s leader, wrote lengthy treatises on medicine, astrology and the martial arts. He allegedly developed the practice of jiao di or horn-butting and utilized it in war.[5]

Shǒubó (手搏) kung fu, practiced during the Shang dynasty (1766–1066 BC), and Xiang Bo (similar to Sanda) from the 600s BC,[6] are just two examples of ancient Chinese kung fu. In 509 BC, Confucius suggested to Duke Ding of Lu that people practice the literary arts as well as the martial arts[6] thus, kung fu was practiced external to the military and religious sects by ordinary citizens; (pre-dating Shaolin by over 1,000 years). A combat wrestling system called juélì or jiǎolì (角力) is mentioned in the Classic of Rites (1st c. BC).[7] This combat system included techniques such as strikes, throws, joint manipulation, and pressure point attacks. Jiao li became a sport during the Qin Dynasty (221–207 BCE). The Han History Bibliographies record that, by the Former Han (206 BCE – 8 CE), there was a distinction between no-holds-barred weaponless fighting, which it calls shǒubó (手搏), for which "how-to" manuals had already been written, and sportive wrestling, then known as juélì or jiǎolì (角力). Wrestling is also documented in the Shǐ Jì, Records of the Grand Historian, written by Sima Qian (ca. 100 BC).


And that was very rude of you to think that all i know about kung fu is dynasty warriors and movies. I have been training in Shaolin Kung fu for like 3 yrs now and i just started Jeet Kune Do.


When it comes to ancient history, i'm interested mostly in 3 civilizations. Rome, Greece, and China.

[keravnos]

The army of Qin had crossbows which it used at great effect. What isn't known is that the unification of china was done with bronze weapons, essentially bronze longswords, which were covered by a nickel layer, a technique only rediscovered in the West during the 1930's.

I really don't think I am qualified to think what would happen if a Qin army faced a Hellenistic or a Roman army. I wish we could have a way to find out.

What does amaze me though are the similarities between Qin and Macedonia. Both in the outside of their world (Qin of the Chinese, Macedonia of the Greek) so much so that their neighbouring states of the same nation called them barbaric (chinese the Qin, and Greeks the Macedonians even though Qin were fanatic defenders of the Chinese and the same held true for the Macedonians as well)

Qin were great horse breeders ( as the legend says...) and the exact held true in Makedonia. One of its earliest lands Kalindoia means the place where horses roll around (to ger rid of parasites).

Qin and Macedonias' strength was tested in years after years of defending foreing invaders (Qin had the Rung and Hsiung Nu Macedonia had Illyrians and Thraikians) and held. Not only did they hold but they actually managed to use those barbarians as some of their finest troops when they placed all the rest of their land under their leadership.

And the worst part for both is that once their work was done and their whole world conquered (more or less) the divine leader which did it all died, his work fell upon people unable the grasp the vision of the man who created and a terrible civil war started which saw Qin lose everything to the Han and Macedonia losing everything to Roma. Well, at least Han was chinese, whereas Roma was a different nation altogether. In any case, however, Both Han and Roma continued on the exact policies of the defeated, but blamed everything wrong on their predecessors, be it Qin or be it Macedonia. To this day, both Qin and Macedonia have a bad rap exactly because of the accusations of their succesor states. AND THAT IS WRONG!

I have read that people consider Qin the Sparta of China. Yet for the reasons I mentioned above, however many people consider Qin Sparta of China, for me Qin is the Macedonia of China, if there is such a thing as a historical comparison.

Anyways, I recognise the multitude of flaws in my comparison, including the actual fact of comparison itself, but both of them had so much in common it had to be said.

[satalexton]

my post was not directed at anybody in particular..at least not you Alex, you just posted during the wrong time. I just generally get sicken by the fact that ppl think the chinese army consists of fodder-grade, badly trained, unarmored rabble with spears led by a super human general that can carve through hundreds of men alone.

Alex, you're right. There already existed martial arts during warring states period. They differ from different states and are part of the soldier's military training. The men are generally taught to handle a long weapon (usually the ge, then later the Ji) and to handle a straight sword. They're also taught to grapple and strikes, to increase survivability shud a soldier lose all his weapons.

..really, mistaking LS for being the only roman armor is one thing, bending physics is another...

p.s. I'm taught Ba ji quan and Ba gua jiang myself alex D=

[satalexton]

The army of Qin had crossbows which it used at great effect. What isn't known is that the unification of china was done with bronze weapons, essentially bronze longswords, which were covered by a nickel layer, a technique only rediscovered in the West during the 1930's.

I really don't think I am qualified to think what would happen if a Qin army faced a Hellenistic or a Roman army. I wish we could have a way to find out.

What does amaze me though are the similarities between Qin and Macedonia. Both in the outside of their world (Qin of the Chinese, Macedonia of the Greek) so much so that their neighbouring states of the same nation called them barbaric (chinese the Qin, and Greeks the Macedonians even though Qin were fanatic defenders of the Chinese and the same held true for the Macedonians as well)

Qin were great horse breeders ( as the legend says...) and the exact held true in Makedonia. One of its earliest lands Kalindoia means the place where horses roll around (to ger rid of parasites).

Qin and Macedonias' strength was tested in years after years of defending foreing invaders (Qin had the Rung and Hsiung Nu Macedonia had Illyrians and Thraikians) and held. Not only did they hold but they actually managed to use those barbarians as some of their finest troops when they placed all the rest of their land under their leadership.

And the worst part for both is that once their work was done and their whole world conquered (more or less) the divine leader which did it all died, his work fell upon people unable the grasp the vision of the man who created and a terrible civil war started which saw Qin lose everything to the Han and Macedonia losing everything to Roma. Well, at least Han was chinese, whereas Roma was a different nation altogether. In any case, however, Both Han and Roma continued on the exact policies of the defeated, but blamed everything wrong on their predecessors, be it Qin or be it Macedonia. To this day, both Qin and Macedonia have a bad rap exactly because of the accusations of their succesor states. AND THAT IS WRONG!

I have read that people consider Qin the Sparta of China. Yet for the reasons I mentioned above, however many people consider Qin Sparta of China, for me Qin is the Macedonia of China, if there is such a thing as a historical comparison.

Anyways, I recognise the multitude of flaws in my comparison, including the actual fact of comparison itself, but both of them had so much in common it had to be said.

Very well said Kev, people generally tend to think Han as a benevolent regime while the Qin a savage tyranny. What people don't know is that when guan zhong fell to Liu Bang, Xiao He raided the libraries and national archives while everybody else raided the palace and treasury (the civilians were spared due to Liu Bang's orders). It's all those documents that Xiao He nabbed that formed the foundation of the Han government. In fact, very little has changed at all during the begining of the Han dynasty, it was just simply a matter of abolishing certain harsh laws and revising harsh taxation systems. Of course, everything went through an overhaul after the fiasco Liu Bang's queen had caused after his death...

I think I should start a Qin-Han military thread. Would somebody like to help me organise the info?

[MeinPanzer]

There is a direct quote saying that they did reach up into the lands of the Seres. (greek ΣΗΡΕΣ=silworms or (the people of) silkworms, ΣΗΡΟΤΡΟΦΙΑ=raising silkworms so that they can be turned into silk
http://www.souflisilk.gr/soufli/?cat=9)

Seres has long been suggested to be some Desert nomads intermediaries between Bactrians and Chinese. However those Nomads didn't have silkworms or used them to make silk, the Chinese did. So, an hypothesis that Bactrians actually reached china, or even Qin its westernmost Kingdom at the time can be considered, especially in view of the other finds in my previous post.

There is a simple explanation, and that is that the Seres were the people with whom the Bactrians traded for silk, i.e. any number of people living along the Silk Road. There is no need to read Seres as indicating Chinese.

But why did you post the Tuanchang figurine and the Sampula textile fragment as evidence of Bactrian contact with China, when they are nothing of the sort? Again, all the former indicates is trading contact between the Bactrians and the peoples of the Tarim basin, while the latter doesn't indicate any kind of link whatsoever.


So far as greek influence into Qin and the Terracota army is concerned, it might be absolutely nil. It might not. I just established the two facts both sculpting techniques had at the time. Realism and very liberal usage of colours. I also posted an opinion that I read somewhere, which did wonder about a relation, any relation between the former and the later. I fail to see the excitement in your post.

Because I'm frankly surprised that you even gave that theory enough credence to repost it here.


There is a definite link between Hellenistic art and Hinduistic as well as Buddhist art.


http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2011/stories/20030606001308400.htm

In that light, questions must deffinitely be asked about whether or not there was some interaction, any interaction between Greek art and the art of Qin. Especially so, when under Greco-Buddhist art greek depictions of certain themes are reproduced even up until now in all of the Buddhist world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

Especially interesting is the evolution from greek wind god from Hadda in 2nd cent. CE to the Wind God from Kizil, Tarim Basin fresco (7th century) to the 17th century Japanese wind God Fujin

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos7/WindGodsBoreasprobably.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WindGods.JPG


and the next one which I believe you will easily discover on your own... A man with a large club..
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos7/HeraclestoShukongoshin.jpg


Iconographical evolution from the Greek god Herakles to the Japanese god Shukongōshin. From left to right:
1) Herakles (Louvre Museum).
2) Herakles on coin of Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius I.
3) Vajrapani, the protector of the Buddha, depicted as Herakles in the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara.
4) Shukongōshin, manifestation of Vajrapani, as protector deity of Buddhist temples in Japan


As you see there is deffinite influence of greek art to the religious art of Buddism and Hinduism. The question really is whether it started as early as 220 BCE. The big majority of scholars says no, and as such until any contradicting evidence is found they are right.

Of course, but it's all a matter of diffusion. Greek culture had sustained, direct contact with the Indian subcontinent for a long time, whereas China had very little or no direct contact with the Greeks.

[Jolt]

ppl think the chinese army consists of fodder-grade, badly trained, unarmored rabble with spears led by a super human general that can carve through hundreds of men alone.

Well... Zhao Yun apparently did that at Chang Ban. Not through an ordinary army but against the Han Imperial Army, no less. In part thanks to Cao Cao's help, but he did.

Then you have the "Why kill so many when you can freeze them to death with Zhang Fei's voice?" :P

[lobf]

Asian (Chinese and Japanese) warfare from the 'ancient' period up through the 19th century largely consisted of individual duels on the battlefield. Properly speaking, the Chinese really don't stand a chance against most of the factions depicted in EB because of how they fought. Only in massed archery could they achieve parity, but once the melee was joined...

Would you mind me asking where you got this from? Doesn't it seem like at some point, some general would have said "Boy, I might be better off using all the men under my command..."?



What i'm trying to say is, Were Roman methods of warfare truly superior to Chinese ones?


I don't know much about Chinese warfare, but I feel in general "better" and "worse" are vague and/or useless descriptions when comparing things like this. Each was effective in it's own region.


So how come we dont have roman records that say things like "the seres live in funny pointy houses (pagodas) and their eyes look funny"? (i know that sounds bad to say but i really dont doubt the romans would've said that)

I think in general ancient people didn't notice race like we did. I saw/read something on the topic of race relations in the ancient world a while ago. Anyone know what it is I'm thinking of, or know where to learn more about this subject?


The army of Qin had crossbows which it used at great effect. What isn't known is that the unification of china was done with bronze weapons, essentially bronze longswords, which were covered by a nickel layer, a technique only rediscovered in the West during the 1930's.

I really don't think I am qualified to think what would happen if a Qin army faced a Hellenistic or a Roman army. I wish we could have a way to find out.

What does amaze me though are the similarities between Qin and Macedonia. Both in the outside of their world (Qin of the Chinese, Macedonia of the Greek) so much so that their neighbouring states of the same nation called them barbaric (chinese the Qin, and Greeks the Macedonians even though Qin were fanatic defenders of the Chinese and the same held true for the Macedonians as well)

Qin were great horse breeders ( as the legend says...) and the exact held true in Makedonia. One of its earliest lands Kalindoia means the place where horses roll around (to ger rid of parasites).

Qin and Macedonias' strength was tested in years after years of defending foreing invaders (Qin had the Rung and Hsiung Nu Macedonia had Illyrians and Thraikians) and held. Not only did they hold but they actually managed to use those barbarians as some of their finest troops when they placed all the rest of their land under their leadership.

And the worst part for both is that once their work was done and their whole world conquered (more or less) the divine leader which did it all died, his work fell upon people unable the grasp the vision of the man who created and a terrible civil war started which saw Qin lose everything to the Han and Macedonia losing everything to Roma. Well, at least Han was chinese, whereas Roma was a different nation altogether. In any case, however, Both Han and Roma continued on the exact policies of the defeated, but blamed everything wrong on their predecessors, be it Qin or be it Macedonia. To this day, both Qin and Macedonia have a bad rap exactly because of the accusations of their succesor states. AND THAT IS WRONG!

I have read that people consider Qin the Sparta of China. Yet for the reasons I mentioned above, however many people consider Qin Sparta of China, for me Qin is the Macedonia of China, if there is such a thing as a historical comparison.

Anyways, I recognise the multitude of flaws in my comparison, including the actual fact of comparison itself, but both of them had so much in common it had to be said.

Intersting, but I think many of these qualities can be attributed to a lot of successful political states.

[Ludens]

I can't understand this line of reasoning... including China in a map with the rest of the west is no more unrealistic than including the Iberians in the same game map as the Bactrians. Sure, it would be unrealistic for the Chinese to march on the Seleucids, for instance, but then again, it's just as unrealistic for the Ptolemies to march on Carthage, or the Macedonians to invade Iberia. Besides, within the game numerous mechanisms could be put in place to prevent the Chinese spreading west too easily (the sheer distance, for one).

I am not sure what you mean. There was little military contact between the Chinese and Hellenic worlds, so I'd say it is realistic to place the map border between them, in so far any map-border can be realistic. Yes, it's unlikely that Bactria would wage war in Iberia, but apart from sheer distance there is no geographical barrier that makes conquest impossible, unlike those between China and Bactria/India.

That is, of course, not taking into account hardcoded limits to city, unit, culture and faction numbers.


So how come we dont have roman records that say things like "the seres live in funny pointy houses (pagodas) and their eyes look funny"? (i know that sounds bad to say but i really dont doubt the romans would've said that)

That depends on the Romans that went there having written it down, and preferably published it so there are multiple copies; and this writing to survive it to the present century. The former is not that likely, as these would have be working merchants, rather than gentlemen of leisure like most historians were; and the latter is next to impossible unless some medieval monk took the trouble of copying it. Basically, unless someone of considerable means and time went there and took the trouble of writing a long story about it, we would not have heard about it. And even if they did, chances that the text would survive to the present day are small.

[satalexton]

Here's a bit of intersting info:

Qin organizes men in 5, 10, 100, 500, 1000, 3000 (Qu=曲), 10000, 100000 basis. The Qu is the standard unit of the Qin army. If one counts in the troops that guards the logistics, baggage train and support personnel, a Qin army consisting of 1 qu would have around 5k men.

The Wu 伍 - five-man squad. Commanded by the squad leader. This is the smallest tactical unit, used during skirmishing and non set piece battles. If the squad leader dies, the other four are put to death; if a squad leader loses all four of his men, he is also put to death.

The Dui 队 - 10 Wu. 9 standard Wu led by a commander and his squad. This is the standard unit in non set-piece battles. If the commander (the Dui-Zhang-literally means platoon leader in modern terms) actually gets his Dui wiped out...yes, he's put to death.

The Bo 伯 - Two Dui. A term used in set-piece battles. Usually organised in lines 5 men deep and 40 across or blocks 20 men deep and 10 across, depending on the battle situation and their armaments.

Unlike other states at the time which uses 'citizen' levies (registered male population), which had to provide their own arms, armour and provisions, Qin conscripts (all registered male population above 17 and below 60 are consider as the state's reserves) only need to provide their own sword, clothes and provisions. The state supplies (and thus disarms after a campaign) each person a polearm(usually the Ge/Ji), a crossbow and a set of lammelar shirt armour. The armaments one carries vary depending on the situation. So for example, during a set piece battle, a person standing on the firing line would carry a crossbow a Ji (planted onto the ground to keep pesky chariots away) and his sword.

Common weapons of the Qin army:

Crossbow弩: Conturary to popular belief, Qin crossbows were not the best out of the 7 states.
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/qin_mech.jpg
For what they lack in technology, they make up with standarized production. All artisians would make each part to the same standard and each crossbow part are theoretically interchangable. One could technially take 2 broken crossbows apart and assemble a working one out of it. Each part, including the bolts, would have a number, the artisian's name and the supervisor's name engraved on it. If a part is inspected to be substandard, the one responsible will be (yes again) put to death.

The Qin uses 2 types of bows, ones with a lower draw weight (so one doesn't need to bend over to draw) are used by skirmishers, while the foot-drawn ones are used by the line infantry. Qin crossbowmen were feared by other states for being able trade volleys despite taking casualties that would normally cause a rout, and the savageness of their head-on charges against opposing firing lines.

The sword剑: Each infantry provides his own sidearm, so designs and quality may vary. It is generally used when one loses both his crossbow and polearm, which is never a good sign.

Ge戈: The standard dagger axe. Nothing much to say about it other an it's standardized production. Gradually replaced by the Ji.

Mao矛: The chinese term for spear. Like everywhere else in the world, keeps pesky cavalry and chariots away. Gradually replaced by the Ji.

Ji戟:A combination of the Ge and the spear. Originally a chariot weapon.
https://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4069/weapons3dn.jpg
(bottom, the pointy thing above it are crossbow bolts btw)
When trading volleys using the crossbow, it's usually used as a make-shift charge deterent.

Pi铍: A very long spear/pike. Based on the marks left by the decomposed wood in the terracotta army, the shaft is roughly 6.3 metres long. The spearhead is up to 70 cm long with sword like blades. Held in blocks by a whole Bo of men.

Order of battle (set-piece):

For simplicity sake I'll use the Fang Jin ('square' formation)

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Bookend-Ohgai/3816/jinpou/sonsi-houjin.gif
The white squares represent blocks of intantry, the characters on it are basically numbers/letters.
I haven't quite figure out what the rest are, perhaps somebody here can help me with educated guesses while I look for more books from the library?

[Connacht]

Far East couldn't be added anyway in a game that represents Europe and Mid-East warfare and civilizations.
Even with trading contacts and any influences of the case, it is still too far and distant from the other countries. Bactria may be as distant from Rome as it is distant from Beijing. But Rome was in direct contact (and fighting) with the Mid-East, which was connected to Persia, which was connected to Bactria. China wasn't, because the Siberian steppes and the Himalayan mountains denied a closer contact. The only thing the country did was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads, but the Chinese couldn't do anything else. The Romans, instead, with Traian were able to reach today's Iraqi-Iranian border and had even a possibility to go further, while the Seleucids had an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to current Afghanistan.
And it's not true that Makedonia invading Iberia, Ptolemies invading Carthage and anything else are things that are as unrealistic as China invading Bactria. The Mediterranean sea wasn't an ocean and a hypotetical strong Makedonian kingdom may very well attack Iberia; Ptolemies are even land connected to Carthage. A large mass Chinese invasion of the west instead, even if a Chinese kingdom should control the whole Far East region, would be almost impossible for the reasons said some pages before - just like an invasion of China by Seleucids, Parthians, Romans or whoever you want.

So, if we were to do a mod that features both Europe and China, for the whole game there wouldn't be any contact between Western countries and Far Eastern ones.
Why making a slower, heavier mod only for the sake of playing with the Romans/Gauls/Greeks/whoeveryouwant while the Chinese kingdoms are minding only their businness (and vice versa)?
Instead, do a mod set in ancient Far East Asia, where you are deep inside the struggles between Chinese kingdoms and where you may try to conquer other distant-but-not-too-far places like Manchuria, Indochina, Japan, Tibet.
Or play with Europa Universalis II, but it is a completely different type of game. :D


Was Kung Fu used during the EB timeframe? It would seem that if it was, a chinese army using it would be quite formidable.

I don't agree a lot so for three reasons:

1) do not think that Eastern martial arts are those spectacular types of fighting that make soldiers amazing-awesome-hopping-omg-etc. warriors that other peoples, even if trained for war, wouldn't be able to face. ;)

2) also, just in the case, it's better to not underrate Western fighting styles and skills. A soldier in a hoplite army or in a legion, in example, was well trained, had particular ways to fight with his own weapons and shield, then was well placed amongst his companions in a military group thought to act as a powerful unit in the battle. So, if a Chinese army could be formidable, also other armies could be. They're not so outstanding at the point that other armies would be dwarfed in comparison.
Chinese armies had their skills and were normally trained in their warfare arts, as any other army is. It would be strange instead if they were armies of dummies that don't know how to use a weapon.

3) finally, I don't think that in the melee of a huge field battle one would have time and enough concentration to perform who knows which spectacular movements, other than those that any well trained soldier/warrior/men-at-arms/fighter would do in order to kill his enemy and get take back his ass safe at home. :)

[satalexton]

er...Beijing?..you clearly got a lot of thing wrong there mate..^^;

[Connacht]

Nope.
It's just a name for example. I could have said "Bactria may be as far from Rome as it is from Bangkok/Tokyo/Vladivostok". It's only for saying that there is a great distance betwen Western lands and Eastern ones.

[Che Roriniho]

It's a shame it's not possible. in an ideal world, we'd be able to have everyything represented realistic, and like in EU, making Beijing Casse territory could be possible, given time. Also, why couldn't America be repreented in this hypothetical mod? I for one would like to see the Sioux fighting Pahlava.

But, back to reality, it's not going to happen. Shame though, but it's not.

[Connacht]

I for one would like to see the Sioux fighting Pahlava.

It would be possible only in custom battles.

But perhaps in the future Rome 2: Total War will have enough factional and unit slots for letting us to fill a mod even with loricati segmentati flaming oliphaunts and Baktrix aliens, as well as enough engine power and complexity to allow modders to create unique features, battle-styles and any type of thing that can't be added in EB due to hardcoding.

[MeinPanzer]

I am not sure what you mean. There was little military contact between the Chinese and Hellenic worlds, so I'd say it is realistic to place the map border between them, in so far any map-border can be realistic.

The simple fact that a Chinese force reached and successfully besieged a city in Ferghana proves this wrong. The barriers between them were difficult, but not unrealistic, to traverse.

And further, what is being forgotten in this discussion was the fluid and open link between the nomads occupying China's northern border and the nomads to the west. Even just being able to properly model the domino effect by, for instance, having the Chinese defeat the Hsiung-nu and then having them push the Yue-zhi to the west, pushing the Saka further west, etc. would greatly affect gameplay for all by organically reproducing nomadic incursions westward.


Yes, it's unlikely that Bactria would wage war in Iberia, but apart from sheer distance there is no geographical barrier that makes conquest impossible, unlike those between China and Bactria/India.

The establishment of the Silk Road shows that this geographical barrier that you seem to think existed between China and Iran/Bactria would not "make conquest impossible." It is, just like between Iberia and Bactria, a matter of distance and route.


Far East couldn't be added anyway in a game that represents Europe and Mid-East warfare and civilizations.
Even with trading contacts and any influences of the case, it is still too far and distant from the other countries. Bactria may be as distant from Rome as it is distant from Beijing. But Rome was in direct contact (and fighting) with the Mid-East, which was connected to Persia, which was connected to Bactria. China wasn't, because the Siberian steppes and the Himalayan mountains denied a closer contact.

As has already been posted, China was. In the late 2nd c. BC they campaigned as far west as Ferghana.


The only thing the country did was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads, but the Chinese couldn't do anything else. The Romans, instead, with Traian were able to reach today's Iraqi-Iranian border and had even a possibility to go further, while the Seleucids had an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to current Afghanistan.

You have a woefully limited understanding of Chinese history. The Chinese didn't just send "an army to defeat the steppe nomads." Expansion under the Qin and Han was enormous, including the Korean peninsula, southwest China and parts of Vietnam, and parts of the Tarim basin, an empire which is not insignificant when compares to the the Seleucids'.


And it's not true that Makedonia invading Iberia, Ptolemies invading Carthage and anything else are things that are as unrealistic as China invading Bactria. The Mediterranean sea wasn't an ocean and a hypotetical strong Makedonian kingdom may very well attack Iberia; Ptolemies are even land connected to Carthage. A large mass Chinese invasion of the west instead, even if a Chinese kingdom should control the whole Far East region, would be almost impossible for the reasons said some pages before - just like an invasion of China by Seleucids, Parthians, Romans or whoever you want.


So, if we were to do a mod that features both Europe and China, for the whole game there wouldn't be any contact between Western countries and Far Eastern ones.
Why making a slower, heavier mod only for the sake of playing with the Romans/Gauls/Greeks/whoeveryouwant while the Chinese kingdoms are minding only their businness (and vice versa)?

Arguing from a gameplay perspective makes little sense in this respect. You could argue from the same angle that it is not worth including the Iberians in the same map as Bactrians because, though they could meet, it is almost impossible to do so in an average game. The Chinese could meet Bactria, for instance, and that scenario is more likely than finding Iberians in Bactria (as shown historically in the episode described above).

[satalexton]

Needham's myth of the chinese pacifism is overrated. I'm not saying Needham's a bad historian though, he's brilliant infact. But when it came to expansion (or 'defending one's interest'), the chinese were just as aggresive as the romans...perhaps even more so. Just not as blantantly as the Qin did thats all. the Han and Tang dynasty are prime examples.

[Rilder]

No Chineese please, too much would have to be sacrificed to make room for them.

Why not get a group together and mod them in yourself?, so those of us who don't want asians in EB don't have to have them.

[Spoofa]

No Chineese please, too much would have to be sacrificed to make room for them.

Why not get a group together and mod them in yourself?, so those of us who don't want asians in EB don't have to have them.

You already have asians in EB though... :laugh4:


It would be cool if there was a way to make a mod that included all the world with the depth that EB has.

[satalexton]

that sounded almost racist there lol, but yea i agree, no point filling another 12 factions when the engine's already jam packed. Might as well make an EB spinoff. I'm on ball if there are ppl willing to kick in for it.

[Jolt]

Very well resumed explanation of the Qin Military System.

I, for one, must thank you for explaining it so clearly, since it is very well written and enlightning.
Though I must say that such a military system would no wonder encourage desertions.

The fact that a Chinese force reached and successfully besieged a city in Ferghana doesn't prove that China would be capable of consistently fielding armies to go across the steppes and conquering and holding "remote" (In a chinese-centered "Middle Kingdom" way) sedentary populous areas with foreign customs which differ greatly from the Chinese ones. Neither would they be able to do this, nor do I believe they would be inclined to do so.

[MeinPanzer]

The fact that a Chinese force reached and successfully besieged a city in Ferghana doesn't prove that China would be capable of consistently fielding armies to go across the steppes and conquering and holding "remote" (In a chinese-centered "Middle Kingdom" way) sedentary populous areas with foreign customs which differ greatly from the Chinese ones. Neither would they be able to do this, nor do I believe they would be inclined to do so.

We don't know if the Chinese would have been able to do this like we don't know if, for instance, the Dacians would have been capable of consistently fielding armies to cross most of central and northern Europe and conquering and holding settlements in Scandinavia. Neither would they have been able to do this, nor would they most likely have been inclined to do so. But EB provides the player with the ability to do so. The simple fact is that whether Dacia and Scandinavia ever interacted directly, intended to do it, or were even historically able to do it, they interacted and affected one another indirectly and there is the possibility that they could have had direct contact.

That's the entire point of a game like EB, otherwise the game would be much more restrictive in forcing the player to follow a historical path. Looking at Macedonia in the mid 4th century, no one would have imagined that Macedonians would have been inclined, nor capable, of conquering to India and creating an Indo-Greek empire in the northwest of that subcontinent in what is historically the blink of an eye. All that would be necessary would be for some sort of circumstance within a game to create the inclination for one of the Warring States to head westward. EB is more about possibilities within the historical framework of the timeline than it is with strictly historical simulation.

[Connacht]

The establishment of the Silk Road shows that this geographical barrier that you seem to think existed between China and Iran/Bactria would not "make conquest impossible." It is, just like between Iberia and Bactria, a matter of distance and route.


A series of merchants that travel for a long time following some trading routes isn't the same thing as a huge army that enters the steppes for an invasion of a whole continent.
Unless your army is a nomadic horse horde and you are called Temujin.


You have a woefully limited understanding of Chinese history. The Chinese didn't just send "an army to defeat the steppe nomads."

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that the Chinese didn't do any military campaign at all.


Expansion under the Qin and Han was enormous, including the Korean peninsula, southwest China and parts of Vietnam, and parts of the Tarim basin, an empire which is not insignificant when compares to the the Seleucids'.

And so? The Romans conquered Britannia, North Africa and Phoenicia, does these conquest make them probably invaders of China? Come on, you're telling of Vietnam and Korea, they are completely different countries, they are really closer to the heart of China than Europe and connection with them was really a completely different thing than an hypotetical connection with Mid-East or Eastern Europe.
The fact that a Chinese army attacked Korea is a story that has anything to do with a serious attempt of conquering the far West (or vice versa).

But, well, yeah, if the Chinese conquered even Southern China, then it's obvious that they could be able to reach the Mediterranean Sea. ;)


Arguing from a gameplay perspective makes little sense in this respect. You could argue from the same angle that it is not worth including the Iberians in the same map as Bactrians because, though they could meet, it is almost impossible to do so in an average game. The Chinese could meet Bactria, for instance, and that scenario is more likely than finding Iberians in Bactria (as shown historically in the episode described above).

A simple contact isn't enough for allowing a large-scale war scenario.
Bactria would have _a lot more_ things to do with Eastern countries than China could be with Bactria. And Eastern countries have a lot more in common with Western European countries.
Bactrians during the game may really make their presence visible to Seleucians and Parthians (and whoever could be there), while I don't think that a Roman/Greek/Seleucian player could notice a Chinese empire coming to knock at his doors because it wants to conquer Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and then go further: even if China should reach the territories that are today's Sinkiang and Tibet, distances would be too long from the mainland of China to lands west of Transoxiana.

I repeat what is my opinion: Chinese in game would remain in Eastern Asia doing their business, as well as Western countries would mind their own one. In a realistic mod, any attempt of a player to invade one side would be a logistical sucide (... if a player manages to make his dominions enough large during the timeframe) for the reasons said before. That's not a pic nic.

[Foot]

This argument is completely academic. There is no suggestion anywhere, that were it possible, EB would expand to include China. That is certainly not in our remit and I don't think we as a team would have any interest in expanding to an area of the map that had such little impact on the major theatres of war of the mediterranean and the Iranian Plateau.

Foot

[satalexton]

@Jolt
...but you must admit that it was deathly effective, and to the eyes of a commoner it's a quick way to status and prestiege. The Han military later on largely adopted and expanded on the Qin system, and subsequently set the foundation of chinese military doctrine for years to come.

Imagine this, you are a soldier from one of the 6 states standing in a tight firing line. You draw your crossbow with your foot at signal's notice, load the bolt, and fire in upon command at the enemy firing line 300 yards away. Normally after a few trades one side will either lose nerve or a platoon commander gets fed up and orders his men to draw swords for an ill-fated charge. But no, the Qin men keeps on firing, despite the casualties they sustained. To make matters worse, a blocks of pikemen move forward upon your line and you have no way to reach them with your sword. Your line gets tied down. You hear a distant signal and the Qin men drop their crossbows, remove the Ji from the ground and come after you in a charge.

You are a reasonably well off land owner or artisian, your land or business is wealthy enough for you to provide your arms, and hire workers so you will have time off to drill. If you're dead, you cant keep that. The Qin, on the other hand, are conscripts. Most of them don't have much social status nor wealth, and pretty much all their gear are provided by the state. Their training's tough, dicipline harsh, but ONE thing drives their motivation: YOUR wealth, and your HEAD. For each (confirmed) kill elevates their status, each inch of land gained will one day be your to till, and each rank you attain increases your share of the booty.

You have something to protect, yet they have nothing to lose. Couple that with iron dicipline and harsh military training, they are a terror to behold.

[MeinPanzer]

A series of merchants that travel for a long time following some trading routes isn't the same thing as a huge army that enters the steppes for an invasion of a whole continent.
Unless your army is a nomadic horse horde and you are called Temujin.

You seem to be a bit confused. I'm not discussing "huge armies entering the steppes for an invasion of a whole continent" (which continent, by the way? Is China not a part of Asia?), I'm discussing Chinese armies using the path that extends from the western portion of the great wall through either the north or south of the Tarim basin into the west- a route which Chinese armies historically took during the EB timeframe.


You misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that the Chinese didn't do any military campaign at all.
...
And so? The Romans conquered Britannia, North Africa and Phoenicia, does these conquest make them probably invaders of China? Come on, you're telling of Vietnam and Korea, they are completely different countries, they are really closer to the heart of China than Europe and connection with them was really a completely different thing than an hypotetical connection with Mid-East or Eastern Europe.
The fact that a Chinese army attacked Korea is a story that has anything to do with a serious attempt of conquering the far West (or vice versa).

That comment was in response to this, especially the bolded part:


The only thing the country did was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads, but the Chinese couldn't do anything else. The Romans, instead, with Traian were able to reach today's Iraqi-Iranian border and had even a possibility to go further, while the Seleucids had an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to current Afghanistan.

Your line of thinking here is clear: the Chinese couldn't do anything else other than send armies against the steppe nomads, while the Romans and the Seleucids controlled huge empires. My post was just to show that this isn't true- the Qin and Han empires expanded hugely during the EB timeframe, just like the Romans and the Macedonians. I'm just arguing that China was expansionist during this timeframe and had the capability to reach the west, but that they were not so inclined, in much the same way that Mediterranean powers could have invaded Scandinavia or the Baltics (areas which were about as accessible to and had about as much contact with the Mediterranean powers during the EB timeframe as China did with the easternmost EB factions), but they were not inclined to do so.


A simple contact isn't enough for allowing a large-scale war scenario.
Bactria would have _a lot more_ things to do with Eastern countries than China could be with Bactria. And Eastern countries have a lot more in common with Western European countries.
Bactrians during the game may really make their presence visible to Seleucians and Parthians (and whoever could be there), while I don't think that a Roman/Greek/Seleucian player could notice a Chinese empire coming to knock at his doors because it wants to conquer Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and then go further: even if China should reach the territories that are today's Sinkiang and Tibet, distances would be too long from the mainland of China to lands west of Transoxiana.

I've pretty much covered my response to this in previous posts.


I repeat what is my opinion: Chinese in game would remain in Eastern Asia doing their business, as well as Western countries would mind their own one. In a realistic mod, any attempt of a player to invade one side would be a logistical sucide (... if a player manages to make his dominions enough large during the timeframe) for the reasons said before. That's not a pic nic.

I should perhaps here lay out my position on all this just because it seems like everyone is going in different directions. I am not for anything east of what is currently in the EB map being included. I would not want to see more of India or even more of the Tarim basin included. I think the boundaries are fine as is even if it was feasible to expand the map.

All I am saying is that given the possibility to create a game akin to EB in the EB timeframe, with an overworld map divided into provinces and armies that would attempt to simulate the historical situation at a particular point in time, I would be all for extending the map to include parts of India, China, what is today Mongolia and eastern Siberia, and southeast Asia as far south as Indonesia. I would be for this firstly because it would allow for organic trade to emerge between East and West, primarily through the Silk Road, but also through sea routes from India. Secondly, it would allow for the steppes to be modelled more realistically, with true domino movements influencing both east and west. Finally, because it would allow for outlandish scenarios like Chinese forces invading westward or Bactrians invading eastward or Indians invading Bactria, etc., as EB presently allows. I would support making these actions as viable as they historically were (i.e. not impossible but improbable).

[satalexton]

I personally think if Qin/Han are implemented into the mod, it would be a mundane ritual of holding a wide swath of homeland provinces, a tiny handful of expansion regions, surrounded by an endless sea of type 3 and 4 governments.

[Jolt]

We don't know if the Chinese would have been able to do this like we don't know if, for instance, the Dacians would have been capable of consistently fielding armies to cross most of central and northern Europe and conquering and holding settlements in Scandinavia. Neither would they have been able to do this, nor would they most likely have been inclined to do so. But EB provides the player with the ability to do so. The simple fact is that whether Dacia and Scandinavia ever interacted directly, intended to do it, or were even historically able to do it, they interacted and affected one another indirectly and there is the possibility that they could have had direct contact.

That's the entire point of a game like EB, otherwise the game would be much more restrictive in forcing the player to follow a historical path. Looking at Macedonia in the mid 4th century, no one would have imagined that Macedonians would have been inclined, nor capable, of conquering to India and creating an Indo-Greek empire in the northwest of that subcontinent in what is historically the blink of an eye. All that would be necessary would be for some sort of circumstance within a game to create the inclination for one of the Warring States to head westward. EB is more about possibilities within the historical framework of the timeline than it is with strictly historical simulation.

Do not forget that you're example has very little in common with a China-West connection. Persia had already invaded Greece, and was only separated by the small Aegean Sea, and was a force with significant impact in Greece even after the defeat of their invasion. Whereas China and Bactria are separated by miles of steppe lands, surrounded by mountainous terrain. But then, by following your line of thought, providing...let's see, Great Zimbabwe united all the Bantu tribes in Africa, and headed Northwards, and embarked on a World Conquest reaching as far as Japan could be just as possible, considering they'd be inclined to such a task, despite existing little connection between Great Zimbabwe and the Mediterranian. What I am saying (And Foot explained it) is that nations who had little impact on the affairs of the current EB map are best left omitted.


@Jolt
...but you must admit that it was deathly effective, and to the eyes of a commoner it's a quick way to status and prestiege. The Han military later on largely adopted and expanded on the Qin system, and subsequently set the foundation of chinese military doctrine for years to come.

Imagine this, you are a soldier from one of the 6 states standing in a tight firing line. You draw your crossbow with your foot at signal's notice, load the bolt, and fire in upon command at the enemy firing line 300 yards away. Normally after a few trades one side will either lose nerve or a platoon commander gets fed up and orders his men to draw swords for an ill-fated charge. But no, the Qin men keeps on firing, despite the casualties they sustained. To make matters worse, a blocks of pikemen move forward upon your line and you have no way to reach them with your sword. Your line gets tied down. You hear a distant signal and the Qin men drop their crossbows, remove the Ji from the ground and come after you in a charge.

You are a reasonably well off land owner or artisian, your land or business is wealthy enough for you to provide your arms, and hire workers so you will have time off to drill. If you're dead, you cant keep that. The Qin, on the other hand, are conscripts. Most of them don't have much social status nor wealth, and pretty much all their gear are provided by the state. Their training's tough, dicipline harsh, but ONE thing drives their motivation: YOUR wealth, and your HEAD. For each (confirmed) kill elevates their status, each inch of land gained will one day be your to till, and each rank you attain increases your share of the booty.

You have something to protect, yet they have nothing to lose. Couple that with iron dicipline and harsh military training, they are a terror to behold.

Indeed. But providing you had all the training in the world, if your squad leader comitted one mistake and got himself killed, then you had 0 chances in theory of escaping alive, despite doing your best at fighting/trying to save your squad leader's life. But yes, it is a system which forces all the army to win, true, but if things don't go too well. Then massive desertions could ensure.

I have one question. Was the Han system very alike, or did they alter some principals behind the army organization?

[satalexton]

Han was nearly identical to that of Qin in fact, the only real difference really is that the source of motivation is no longer the threat of execution (they prefer the idea of 'court martial', seems more 'fair' when it's a bunch of your peers judging ya death huh?) and lobbing others' heads off to prove u got a kill. It worked mainly because the military is now under the hands of relatively more lenient regime (tho still using Qin constituitions and laws), a much larger territory, and a much larger population. The latter is particularly important because, despite every adult male are still technically considered as reserves, many people may never see military service in their life time. Thus the Han army is more professionalized and take up a smaller proportion of the total population.

Oh it also helps when ur no longer fighting a civil war, but 'defending' your self from the XiongNu, punishing 'rebellious' IndoGreeks and defending the Silk Route while making a fat load of cash in the process.

[MeinPanzer]

Do not forget that you're example has very little in common with a China-West connection. Persia had already invaded Greece, and was only separated by the small Aegean Sea, and was a force with significant impact in Greece even after the defeat of their invasion.

I don't understand why you're bringing up the connection between Persia and Greece in this context.


Whereas China and Bactria are separated by miles of steppe lands, surrounded by mountainous terrain.

If you wanted to go through the north, yes. But the route actually taken by Chinese troops was through the Tarim Basin, which remained the primary route for any travellers going from the west to China and vice versa for millennia. This route followed the great wall to the west, then continued westward until it hit the Tarim Basin (which is a desert; no steppe lands involved) and went either north or south, following the edge of the desert until they crossed mountains on the western side of the basin and crossed into the region around Bactria.

If you think my example has little in common with the China-West connection, here's a better one. The Sabaeans lived a huge distance away from the Mediterranean, had minimal contacts with the other EB factions (mainly with the Aithiopians, who are not represented in game, and to a limited extent in the east with some Iranian peoples). In order for them to reach another EB faction, they would have had to travel hundreds of miles either over the Red Sea or through desert and mountain to reach them. There was a brisk trade of exotic commodities through parts of Arabia, but the Sabaeans themselves almost don't appear on the radar of the ancient historians, and even when we do hear of contact with Arabians (Aelius Gallus' expedition being the primary mention), we only hear about a penetration of a fragment of the Arabian peninsula, not even getting close to the Sabaean homeland. They were barely expansionist, only fighting other neighbouring Arabian states. Yet the Sabaeans are included in EB.

[Che Roriniho]

It would be possible only in custom battles.


Not if The Sioux Managed to get across the Bering Strait, Through China, and round India to Pahlava! Or If Pahlava did the revrerse. Obviously though, this hypothetical mod would cover about 2000 years of history (I would say 300 BC to 1432 AD),, and would be simply immense. Still, it's not gonna happen, unless that would be possible in ETW, which I somehow doubt)

[Tellos Athenaios]

To cut this story short: there will not be Qin or any other Chinese power in EB; even if the map allowed it. Not even if the faction limit allowed it. Likely, not even if the engine could be massaged in such a way the Qin military organisation could be modelled accurately. Which by the way AFAIK is still largely a matter of individual duels; yes a comprehensive organisation existed - but the point is that a soldiers pay, or punishment was a direct consequence of the number of duels/encounters won (or lost). Hence the importance of cutting off the heads of fallen foes.

The reason why no Chinese power would be included is that if they can; so can dozens of other things.

From what I'm reading this 'discussion' has become an argument for the sake of having one. Why?

[satalexton]

Tellos, there were no infantry one-on-one duels. There were chariot duels during the much earlier period of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, but chariots by the EB time frame are on the decline, it's role being filled by cavalry introduced by the Zhao state's "Hu Fu Qi She" (literally means dressing up as a nomad and practising horse-riding and shooting from horseback) reform. Chariots then were largely used to serve as a mobile command post for generals, signalers (drums and large horns), while the rest are put onto the 2 flanks.

The Qin putting on obtaining the enemy's 首级 (roughly translates to 'head') was to encourage the men to fight more ferociously when the charge (300 yards while taking at least 3-4 vollies of bolts) was ordered. The head lopping bit comes when the enemy is breaking, where the Qin soldier would literally drop his Ji, draw his sword, and start chasing to nearest routing chap for his head. In a battle between Qin and Chu during 224BC, when the Chu decide to retreat to a better position to fight the Qin after a long stalemate, the Qin ordered an advance all of a sudden and turned what was suppose to be a tactical retreat into a rout.

[Jolt]

I don't understand why you're bringing up the connection between Persia and Greece in this context.

Because you gave Macedonia as an example of someone who wasn't expected to build an Empire, like China could, providing they cross over to the West. My point was that there were already great rivalries between those civilizations (Which motivated the original purpose of the war), while an easily surpassable obstacle (Sea/Strait). Both civilizations had already been in constant warfare and were greatly hostile to one another. Thus it becomes logical that either Macedonia or any other Greek City-State or a coalition of them could try to head East with a significant number of troops, or a Persian re-invasion of Greece, for that matter.
Putting it back into context, there was no such thing between Qin/Han and Bactria. There were no rivalries between the states, and they weren't exactly very aware of how each other even functioned; They had miles to cross before they reached one another, especially Qin, which never focused much in external expansion; Both had little encounters throughout their histories (The one related in this thread is the first one that I know of between Greeks and Chinese, even though someone said they weren't exactly Greeks but some sort of vassal/tributary state.), and that sporadic encounter happened merely because the Chinese envoy was killed. Otherwise, no expedition would have took place.
Therefore one example and other have little in common.



If you wanted to go through the north, yes. But the route actually taken by Chinese troops was through the Tarim Basin, which remained the primary route for any travellers going from the west to China and vice versa for millennia. This route followed the great wall to the west, then continued westward until it hit the Tarim Basin (which is a desert; no steppe lands involved) and went either north or south, following the edge of the desert until they crossed mountains on the western side of the basin and crossed into the region around Bactria.

If you think my example has little in common with the China-West connection, here's a better one. The Sabaeans lived a huge distance away from the Mediterranean, had minimal contacts with the other EB factions (mainly with the Aithiopians, who are not represented in game, and to a limited extent in the east with some Iranian peoples). In order for them to reach another EB faction, they would have had to travel hundreds of miles either over the Red Sea or through desert and mountain to reach them. There was a brisk trade of exotic commodities through parts of Arabia, but the Sabaeans themselves almost don't appear on the radar of the ancient historians, and even when we do hear of contact with Arabians (Aelius Gallus' expedition being the primary mention), we only hear about a penetration of a fragment of the Arabian peninsula, not even getting close to the Sabaean homeland. They were barely expansionist, only fighting other neighbouring Arabian states. Yet the Sabaeans are included in EB.

That is true, but the supposed wealth of the Sabeans prompted the expedition of Aelius Gallus, which shows that they weren't exactly isolated. And the distance they'd have to travel through the sea to reach, I'm not even talking of the Eythrean Ptolomaic possessions or Upper Egypt, but Necao's Channel, is still at the very least half of the distance of Han's Eastern-most borders to reach the Bactrians. And providing they knew in which seasons the wind was favourable to go Northwards (Which I'm sure they did know), it wouldn't be that difficult to reach Egypt from Arabia Felix.

Still, what you bring up is also true, since the Sabeans had little impact on the affairs of the rest of EB's factions.


and lobbing others' heads off to prove u got a kill.

Chinese Head Hunters! ^_^'

[Foot]

It is true that Saba played very little part in the affairs of the mediterranean, though there was certainly some. However we are, due to how the world works, stuck with a huge expanse of space in the shape of Arabia. Before Saba were added the rebel towns and armies of Arabia had no appropriate parent faction to belong to (this is important as it defines what names the rebel family leaders can use, what portraits, what it can recruit and so on). I can't remember exactly but I think that in the 0.7x group of releases Parthia was chosen as the parent faction in Arabia, which inevitably led to purple provinces all over the place (in india to as parthia was the parent faction there, and still is). So we have a large entirely complete peninsular in need of a parent faction, that housed important trading cities, and would stop the encroachment of parthian purple into this huge part of the map. For practical purposes Saba had a lot to offer.

This in no way is designed to express all the reasons behind Saba's inclusion, but it certainly helps explain the practical reason.

Foot

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah, I remember how in 0.74 the Parthians would end up at war with the Ptolies over, say Yemen... When the Parthians themselves had been beaten naught but to dust by the Seleukids from day one. Oh, those were some really whacky wasteland days! ~:)

[Connacht]

You seem to be a bit confused. I'm not discussing "huge armies entering the steppes for an invasion of a whole continent" (which continent, by the way? Is China not a part of Asia?),

Only a part of Asia doesn't mean the entire Asia, otherwise going from Hong Kong to Teheran or to Omsk would be the same as going from Madrid to Istanbul. Then we have also to consider Europe as a possible region to expand towards, during the game, since an hypotetical faction that can occupy territories in the Mid-East could also go further - as the Seleucians, for instance, in EB might do - but this is "A bit too far" (half-quote)...
The same thing would be applied to a western country or to a Eastern/Eastern Greek faction, since trying to conquer China isn't the same thing as conquering Persia or the whole Mediterranean shores. ;)


I'm discussing Chinese armies using the path that extends from the western portion of the great wall through either the north or south of the Tarim basin into the west- a route which Chinese armies historically took during the EB timeframe.

And what will be the destination of those armies? Transoxiana? Persia? Then even further? As said, it would be a suicide for armies sent there to fight and conquer. ;)
And attacking those lands would be a thing that no one in the far east would have even tried to think, because of the far distance and the low knowledge of what was there: even with some trading contacts, those were lands that the 99% of the people who heard about them only knew for light filtered echoes and didn't care much (and it's for these reasons that many myths grew amongst people in the corners of the Eurasian supercontinent about "the far exotic East/the far exotic West"), imho it's not very much for taking in consideration a conquest somewhere over there.

Which Chinese ruler would say "let's send an army west of the Tarim basin" for some lands that were almost unkown to the majority of the people in the east, except for some old merchants (and not all of them: trading routes could be also a web of connections between cities and places, with goods passing in the hands of many traders before reaching the west)? Why sending huge armies so far, if there were REAL targets in the neighborhood (and just occupied lands that needed to be garrisoned) as Korea or Indochina?
Why should a monarch think to invade really distant places which he only vaguely heard about, instead of leaving them alone and worrying about more closer, concrete, pressing troubles?
Why should a ruler summon thousands and thousands soldiers from more relevant provinces and send them to places that he hasn't any interest for, except for letting traders travel freely travel there through years? This last one is also the reason for the expedition against the _nomads_... and it would also deny any attempt to declare war against any kingdom there, since they wouldn't more establish trading relationships: why disrupting possible trading routes for waging war against somebody?
Well, which general would not consider a campaign like that just a completely crazy project?
I repeat again, an Eastern empire would mind its own businness without caring about what happens near Ekbatana/Palmyra/Persepolis and without thinking of conquer these lands; so a Western empire would mind its own one without caring about what happens in Mongolia, near the Yellow River or in Tibet. ;)

Only one army sent to fight nomads would be a thing, but a campaign with many armies for the conquest of the second half of actual EB map is another thing. It would be only a fabulous dream where mighty armies fight in the nobody's land without any really reasonable aim.


That comment was in response to this, especially the bolded part:


The only thing the country did was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads, but the Chinese couldn't do anything else. The Romans, instead, with Traian were able to reach today's Iraqi-Iranian border and had even a possibility to go further, while the Seleucids had an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to current Afghanistan.

Your line of thinking here is clear: the Chinese couldn't do anything else other than send armies against the steppe nomads, while the Romans and the Seleucids controlled huge empires. My post was just to show that this isn't true- the Qin and Han empires expanded hugely during the EB timeframe, just like the Romans and the Macedonians. I'm just arguing that China was expansionist during this timeframe and had the capability to reach the west, but that they were not so inclined, in much the same way that Mediterranean powers could have invaded Scandinavia or the Baltics (areas which were about as accessible to and had about as much contact with the Mediterranean powers during the EB timeframe as China did with the easternmost EB factions), but they were not inclined to do so.

Nope. Read again the post. The topic was the expansion in the Mid-East, the region from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea to today's Iran. My sentence was referring to that.
While the Seleucids and Romans could expand there for some reasons, the Chinese couldn't. Nobody said that China didn't conquer anything east of the Tarim Basin. Nobody said that the Chinese weren't expansionist. And these things are irrelevant, since we were precisely talking about a conflict between West and Far East, a conflict that can't be done for many reasons and that the Chinese never attempted to engage, since the only thing the country did westward was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads (which was not a preinvasion-of-the-West campaign nor could have forced the Chinese to consider a similar opportunity). ;)


Yet the Sabaeans are included in EB.

In fact IMHO I would have replaced them with factions like Numidia or Pergamon, leaving the southern part of Arabia only to Eleutheroi.

[MeinPanzer]

I think this debate can't really go anywhere, as most points have been made at this point, but I just want to reiterate a few things.


And what will be the destination of those armies? Transoxiana? Persia? Then even further? As said, it would be a suicide for armies sent there to fight and conquer. ;)
And attacking those lands would be a thing that no one in the far east would have even tried to think, because of the far distance and the low knowledge of what was there: even with some trading contacts, those were lands that the 99% of the people who heard about them only knew for light filtered echoes and didn't care much (and it's for these reasons that many myths grew amongst people in the corners of the Eurasian supercontinent about "the far exotic East/the far exotic West"), imho it's not very much for taking in consideration a conquest somewhere over there.

Which Chinese ruler would say "let's send an army west of the Tarim basin" for some lands that were almost unkown to the majority of the people in the east, except for some old merchants (and not all of them: trading routes could be also a web of connections between cities and places, with goods passing in the hands of many traders before reaching the west)? Why sending huge armies so far, if there were REAL targets in the neighborhood (and just occupied lands that needed to be garrisoned) as Korea or Indochina?
Why should a monarch think to invade really distant places which he only vaguely heard about, instead of leaving them alone and worrying about more closer, concrete, pressing troubles?
Why should a ruler summon thousands and thousands soldiers from more relevant provinces and send them to places that he hasn't any interest for, except for letting traders travel freely travel there through years? This last one is also the reason for the expedition against the _nomads_... and it would also deny any attempt to declare war against any kingdom there, since they wouldn't more establish trading relationships: why disrupting possible trading routes for waging war against somebody?
Well, which general would not consider a campaign like that just a completely crazy project?
I repeat again, an Eastern empire would mind its own businness without caring about what happens near Ekbatana/Palmyra/Persepolis and without thinking of conquer these lands; so a Western empire would mind its own one without caring about what happens in Mongolia, near the Yellow River or in Tibet. ;)

I don't know how many times this has to be mentioned, but Han forces did invade Ferghana. Here's a basic outline:

Han dynasty in the second century BC had a difficult time keeping the Xiong-nu at bay. They waged a pretty much constant campaign against the nomads to the northwest and struggled to push back incursions. One wing of this campaign involved the easternmost opening of the Tarim basin, which had been under the control of the Xiong-nu prior to 108 BC, when Han forces captured the city-states in that area, including the largest one in the region, Loulan.

Now, a major facet of the conflict against the Xiong-nu for the Han was a search for good steeds, since those of the nomads were far superior to those of Chinese stock, and in order to combat them properly, the Han needed well-mounted cavalry. After Zhang Qian's embassy to the west in the 120s BC, the Han became aware of a source of "heavenly" horses in a prosperous region they called Da Yuan (Ferghana). The emperor Wudi wanted these horses very badly, and so he commissioned an expedition to go and ask for them, but the king of Da Yuan refused (obviously because they were a precious resource), the embassy left unhappy with this news, and the king for some reason became angry with their response and had them killed on their way back.

Wudi, realizing that the horses wouldnt be gotten so easily, had a military force organized for the dual purpose of punishing this offending kingdom and getting those horses. While this took place, a diversionary attack was made against the Xiong-nu to keep them distracted from this interference in their former western possessions. This expedition took the route to the south of the Tarim basin.

The force organized included something in the region of 30,000 troops, including 20,000 or so conscripts, 6,000 local cavalry, and 3,000 crossbowmen. This was obviously pitifully small, and they were unable to even strongarm local cities in the Tarim Basin into providing them with supplies, so that by the time they reached Da Yuan, they were just a fraction of their previous numbers. They besieged the first city they encountered in Ferghana and were defeated.

Surprisingly, the commander of the military expedition was allowed to undergo a second expedition. This time they learned from their errors, and he was given a force of roughly the same composition as before (border conscripts, local cavalry) but numbering 60,000 men and a huge supply train, including 100,000 head of cattle, 30,000 horses, and other pack animals (donkeys, camels) to the number of around 10,000; food in copious amounts; and plentiful "weapons and crossbows." When he reached Ferghana, he had about 30,000 men left over (many, perhaps most, of the other half were lost, but many were split off into forces that stayed behind and guarded positions along the route they followed).

The army faced off against the Da Yuan troops, defeated them, and forced the population to retreat to the capital. A detached force captured, with some difficulty, the border town which the first expedition had tried and failed to capture. The main body of troops laid siege to the capital, and after 40 days of siege, the outer walls were taken, with the rest of the defenders falling back to the citadel. They killed their king and offered to negotiate with the Chinese, who accepted a gift of 3,000 horses.


Only one army sent to fight nomads would be a thing, but a campaign with many armies for the conquest of the second half of actual EB map is another thing. It would be only a fabulous dream where mighty armies fight in the nobody's land without any really reasonable aim.

Nope. Read again the post. The topic was the expansion in the Mid-East, the region from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea to today's Iran. My sentence was referring to that.
While the Seleucids and Romans could expand there for some reasons, the Chinese couldn't. Nobody said that China didn't conquer anything east of the Tarim Basin. Nobody said that the Chinese weren't expansionist. And these things are irrelevant, since we were precisely talking about a conflict between West and Far East, a conflict that can't be done for many reasons and that the Chinese never attempted to engage, since the only thing the country did westward was sending an army to defeat the steppe nomads (which was not a preinvasion-of-the-West campaign nor could have forced the Chinese to consider a similar opportunity). ;)

The inhabitants of Ferghana were neither nomads, nor did they live on the steppe. Nothing in the abovementioned expedition involved the steppe. The inhabitants of Ferghana were sedentary agriculturalists who lived in walled cities and were keen traders. They may even have included some Greeks. If you want a simple scenario where Han China could have been motivated to conquer Ferghana and head eastward, then perhaps the emperor required broader stocks of horses to equip the army, and so felt that it was necessary to secure this source (in much the same way that the Ptolemies felt it necessary to secure a source of elephants to equip for war, and the Seleucids the same in Bactria), and so sent another expedition this time subjugating the region and, in typical Chinese practice, securing the cities and settlements in the surrounding region to establish vassal states to defend this new holding (as they did with the Tarim basin city-states).

[satalexton]

MeinPanzer, u missed several details, but most importantly, the Han envoy was robbed and killed, not merely 'left unhappy'...

[MeinPanzer]

MeinPanzer, u missed several details, but most importantly, the Han envoy was robbed and killed, not merely 'left unhappy'...

Obviously I'm not going to relay all the details of the story, since that would take too much time. I just tried to summarize it here for the debate at hand. I left out some of the details which were irrelevant to the discussion (like the Xiong-nu shadowing the second expedition, which doesn't seem to have had any outcome) or the agreements with allies on both the Han and Xiong-nu sides (which resulted in no action, as none of the allies joined either side in combat).

But you misunderstand what I wrote in the second part. I don't think I was quite clear in my writing:


the king of Da Yuan refused (obviously because they were a precious resource), the embassy left unhappy with this news, and the king for some reason became angry with their response and had them killed on their way back.

What I mean here is that the king of Da Yuan told the embassy that they couldn't have the horses, and the embassy reacted unhappily to this news, which made the king of Da Yuan angry. The embassy left the king's residence, but made it only to the border of Ferghana, where they were killed and robbed by agents of the king because of the king's anger at their reaction to being rebuffed.

[Sir Edward]

Guys really you got your response from the EB team that under no situation would they include the Qin dynasty in EB with the TW engine, why is this argument still going on? It's pretty obvious that no one is going to be changing their mind in this thread. Just accept that an alternate history there is really an infinite number of possibilities for outcomes. Maybe the Chinese and Romans could have had a military impact on each other but we will never know since if you change one factor there will be a ripple effect. If chinese soldier went west whats to say they wouldn't come close to rebellion and the army would have to turn back (a la Alexanders macedonian army at the indus), it just can't be known since there are too many variables.

[lobf]

I don't think anyone has any illusions about the Chinese making their way into EB... this is a hypothetical discussion.

[Megas Methuselah]

Not only is it hypothetical, but it is also quite enlightening. :clown:

[lobf]

Not only is it hypothetical, but it is also quite enlightening. :clown:

Indeed, I have read every post.

[irishguy1]

wow so many people commented on this, never expected this to arouse so much interest

I am grateful for the hard-working gamers who coded the mod to it's max. And really rather than just thinking that my desire of including China was in the next update, but just the idea of what such a game would be like, whenever it is that our computers could handle such performance.

And really just how many people it would take to create such an epic game.

So sorry if anyone thought i was raising a petition sort of thing to actually start something along these lines, just more an idea.

[Che Roriniho]

wow so many people commented on this, never expected this to arouse so much interest

I am grateful for the hard-working gamers who coded the mod to it's max. And really rather than just thinking that my desire of including China was in the next update, but just the idea of what such a game would be like, whenever it is that our computers could handle such performance.

And really just how many people it would take to create such an epic game.

So sorry if anyone thought i was raising a petition sort of thing to actually start something along these lines, just more an idea.

I think most people here understood. But I share your dream for having a World:Total War Game, consisting of over 100 factions, and the whole frigging world. As I've sid before, you'd be able to answer that great question: If the Romans and the Zulus had a fight, who would win?

Of course, W:TW would come in a collectors tin, with a free Concubine.

[satalexton]

xD I could do with the concubine w/o the tin nor the game tho xD

[Visitor13]

Ancient China conquering Rome and vice versa is stretching it, but only slightly less crazy things have happened. Somewhat later than EB's timeframe we have the Tang empire with protectorates as far as Tocharistan, held mainly by vassalised nomads but AFAIK also with a regular Chinese military presence, a small one, but still. Not that this 'western empire' could ever have survived (and it looks absolutely terrible on a map), but the immense authority of the early Tang emperors helped hold it together for some time.

I would love to see something like that in a Total War game/mod - although obviously the RTW/MTW2 engines would not be capable of handling anything like that.

[Che Roriniho]

xD I could do with the concubine w/o the tin nor the game tho xD

I reccomend reasing 1421 by Gavin Menzies. If nothing else makes you scream 'I WANT A BLOODY CONCUBINE' Nothing will. A word of note though. The Red silk bra-stocking combo, which he claims is called the mo xiong isn't called that. Any help?

:hijacked:

Sorry about that. It's also a bit outside our period (Ming Dynasty), but it's all good (VERY good in the case of the Concubines) Dammit, someone shoot me.

Seriously though, what was the mo xiong REALLY called (and yes, I kow Mo Xiong was a Chinese Communist)?

[keravnos]

Tellos, there were no infantry one-on-one duels. There were chariot duels during the much earlier period of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, but chariots by the EB time frame are on the decline, it's role being filled by cavalry introduced by the Zhao state's "Hu Fu Qi She" (literally means dressing up as a nomad and practising horse-riding and shooting from horseback) reform. Chariots then were largely used to serve as a mobile command post for generals, signalers (drums and large horns), while the rest are put onto the 2 flanks.

The Qin putting on obtaining the enemy's 首级 (roughly translates to 'head') was to encourage the men to fight more ferociously when the charge (300 yards while taking at least 3-4 vollies of bolts) was ordered. The head lopping bit comes when the enemy is breaking, where the Qin soldier would literally drop his Ji, draw his sword, and start chasing to nearest routing chap for his head. In a battle between Qin and Chu during 224BC, when the Chu decide to retreat to a better position to fight the Qin after a long stalemate, the Qin ordered an advance all of a sudden and turned what was suppose to be a tactical retreat into a rout.

@Satalexon, Thank you for an amazing insight on the army of Qin and Han. Very much appreciated.
First off, even if Qin never makes it to EB (which I would personally love to see), here are some pictures based on the terracota army to better visualise what Satalexon is talking about.

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowrecreation.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowreconstruction4.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowreconstruction3.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowreconstruction2.jpg
this,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowreconstruction.jpg
a diagram of its operation in chinese,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowdiagram.jpg
and a bronze crossbow replica of the period, found in a grave,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobow.jpg

The crossbow of the Han was superior to range and penetrating power to all bows of its time. It would be only later with the asymmetric composite bow (Turkic bows' ancestor), developed by either the Yuehzi or Wusun, or better yet the HsiongNu that the HA's would gain an advantage. In the period of EB, though and for a good time yet, Qin/Han crossbow would outshoot all bows.
After those guys would be done shooting and the opposition would be reeling from its wounds. In that semi-paralyzed army would the pikemen (holding their "Pi" pike with both hands) would run into. They had no shields because they would need none (first ranks were pretty well armored in their lamellar bronze cuirasses and a lot of padding underneath). Their flanks would be protected by HA "dressed in the nomad manner"-basically unarmored as S. very well put it. Chariots would be used by the leader to survey the battlefield and/or give commands to his runners (who would be mounted and follow the leaders' chariot). There would be also a backup chariot on standby should the primary "Comand and control" chariot fail for any reason. This would be quite a formidable army to go up against, and I am not so certain that a manipular formation, a typical Pahlavan mounted army (9HA/1Cataphract) a hoplitic phallanx or a pike phallanx, even backed by hetairoi and flanked by hypaspistai would fare so well fighting them. Like I said, I don't have the qualifications to go further into that hypothesis as to what would actually happen. This would take a military expert (as a judge), and 2 dedicated historians of the time, who (knowing all the strategies and stratagems that the two opposing armies had used-that we know of), might be able to use them on one another, in a pseudo-battlefield. Even then, this would be a reconstruction, NOT an actual encounter.



Han was nearly identical to that of Qin in fact, the only real difference really is that the source of motivation is no longer the threat of execution (they prefer the idea of 'court martial', seems more 'fair' when it's a bunch of your peers judging ya death huh?) and lobbing others' heads off to prove u got a kill. It worked mainly because the military is now under the hands of relatively more lenient regime (tho still using Qin constituitions and laws), a much larger territory, and a much larger population. The latter is particularly important because, despite every adult male are still technically considered as reserves, many people may never see military service in their life time. Thus the Han army is more professionalized and take up a smaller proportion of the total population.

Oh it also helps when ur no longer fighting a civil war, but 'defending' your self from the XiongNu, punishing 'rebellious' IndoGreeks and defending the Silk Route while making a fat load of cash in the process.



That is very interesting, including the fact that the country Han attacked was called "Da Yuan" or "Great Ionia", meaning the larger of the two states. This can mean that the Greeks of the Ferghana valley, were either a state of their own or in someway different to "Ta Yuan" or Bactria. It was also called "Da Xia" if memory serves right. Anything you can dig up for them would be nice to know.


Let's also tackle the "lost romans in China" subject. Is there is a description of the Han army fighting those "Yuan"?. They were on foot, and wearing "fish scales" or something (they would be the perceived "Romans" that Han fought). Since you are more or less our resident expert on ancient chinese, could you perhaps dig out that info and tell us more on the Baktrians/IG/Romans that the Han army faced?

-On another note, I have always considered that the King of the Ferghana city under assault by the Han was a Tokharian/Yuehzi in a Tokharian/Yuehzi controlled city. While this has to be the case, it could be that the King was an overlord, allowing the local city to maintain its independence. Also, reading more on the way the siege/countersieging was conducted, it has to have been led by a greek captain. There is no doubt about it, in my mind. The amount of expertise Greeks had on sieging/counter sieging, can't be discounted here, nor the actual methods used. From the accounts of the battle I have read, to counter the undermining of the first walls, the engineers of the besieged city (Kyropolis according to Tarn) built a second wall inside the first one. Hence they were able to withstand a dedicated Han assault and then negotiate a settlement which did make them a subject of the Han, but the Han were so far away, they might as well have been independent. (Exactly like the Bactrians did when Antiochos III besieged Baktra for two years). Again, this is my take on the whole situation, I may be wrong.

Anyways, as this seems likely to be the 2 only likely encounters of EAST VS WEST that we know of, all we could have on them would be absolutely great.

[Hax]

I love this thread.

I'm very much interested in Hellen-Sino relations, and this is pretty awesome.

[satalexton]

i think i'll work on a sketch and a diagram to visualize what a Qin battle line may look like. I'll scan and post it when i'm done. I'm not a very gd sketcher so it may take some time...

[keravnos]

Take your time, and please don't forget your insight on the Ferghana siege/ "Lost Romans?" encounters. Your time and insight is very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Cimon]

Let's also tackle the "lost romans in China" subject. Is there is a description of the Han army fighting those "Yuan"?. They were on foot, and wearing "fish scales" or something (they would be the perceived "Romans" that Han fought). Since you are more or less our resident expert on ancient chinese, could you perhaps dig out that info and tell us more on the Baktrians/IG/Romans that the Han army faced?

I am certainly not the expert that Satalexton is, but I recently read a book called The Shadow of the Silk Road by Colin Thubron. It is primarily a travelogue that follows the old trade routes, starting in Central China at the Tomb of the Yellow Emperor, proceeding through the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia, into Afghanistan and Iran, and moving on toward the end point in modern Antioch. While it is primarily about the modern world, Thubron definitely hits on some of the history of the areas through which he travels. Anyone looking at it as a serious, in-depth history book will probably be disappointed, but I still recommend it to those intrested in the area.

In any case, Thubron does discuss the suggested encounter with the "Romans." I don't have the book near me right now, but I will look it up when I get home and see what he says.

[satalexton]

http://image.cnwest.com/attachement/jpg/site1/20080725/001372d8a0ba09f3d18527.jpg
The head of a 'Pi' pike, long mistaken for a short sword, until long grooves left by the rotted wooden pike shafts were found where they lay.
Slow moving, pike blocks may seem out of place in a crossbow orientated army. But if one takes a look at the battle formations of a Qin/Han army such as the 'yan xing zhen' or the 'geese formation', he would appreciate the line holding properties of a pike block.
http://www.ezgame.com/K3_common_images/Geese.gif

Kev, how do you reckon a chinese pike block may look like? It's just to help my sketching... =P and I don't feel like poping down to the uni library today.

[MeinPanzer]

That is very interesting, including the fact that the country Han attacked was called "Da Yuan" or "Great Ionia", meaning the larger of the two states. This can mean that the Greeks of the Ferghana valley, were either a state of their own or in someway different to "Ta Yuan" or Bactria. It was also called "Da Xia" if memory serves right. Anything you can dig up for them would be nice to know.

Bactria was Da Xia, not Da Yuan:

"Originally Da Xia had no major overlord or chief, and minor chiefs were frequently established in the towns. The inhabitants are weak and afraid of fighting, with the result that when the Yuezhi migrated there, they made them all into their subjects. They provide supplies for Han envoys."

The identification of the Da Yuan of the Shiji and Hanshou as Greeks is very problematic.

The Hanshou for instance states that "in Da Yuan and to the east and west grapes are used to make wine," so it is questionable to identify the inhabitants of Da Yuan as Greeks based on the fact that they consumed grape wine if their eastern, obviously non-Greek neighbours also consumed wine. It is further mentioned that "their weapons are bows and spears, and they shoot from horseback." This could be describing the Graeco-Bactrians, as they obviously picked up horse archery, but it sounds very generic. It's not the way the Chinese sources generally describe nomadic peoples - they use the stock term "so many skilled archers" to describe them. But you'd think the Chinese would comment further on their unusual arms were they Greeks, especially considering the detail that they go into with some of the other states located around the Tarim basin. Archaeology shows traces of a flourishing culture, called the Kugai-Karabulak culture, which is clearly non-Greek in the Ferghana valley. The traces of this culture show agriculture and stockbreeding as well as fortified towns. Arms found include arrowheads and daggers.

Further, the king of Da Yuan at the time of the expedition of Li Guangli is identified as having what is probably a Saka name.

If anything, the Greeks had nominal control over the sedentary inhabitants of Ferghana, who inhabited their own cities. When the Saka invaded after being pushed westward by the Yuezhi, they pushed out the Graeco-Bactrians and controlled the Ferghana valley and neighbouring Bactria.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Ultimately when it comes to Chinese warfare and militaria, in particular one with a few but large foundations such as the Qin and later Han dynasties, we don't only see the foundations such as centre-plate forces (Cross-bows and infantry), but also fluid flanks in the form of light horse, and auxiliary forces along with a commanding element such as chariotry. Most importantly, improved logistics; China, no matter the dynasty, had a military force which could sustain itself viably in ratio to its population base, and many contemporary Chinese sources, in particular the historical basis of the "Romance"-era, mention armies ranking upwards hundreds of thousands, divided in gigantic plates. This is a drastically different way of warfare altogether. Interesting, but different.

Satalexton's animation of the Chinese "geese"-formation is interesting, but the portrayal is simplistic (Probably to portray how easily manipulated centre-plates are, just to make a point); The opponents are really just advancing in unison. The secret appears to be that the formation lives and dies by the sustenance of the inner flanks. If they hold, the enemy is engulfed. If they fold, the centre will find itself so condensed that it might prompt a "Cannae".

On the matter of Saba, we felt also that due to Parthian interactions throughout the Arabian coast-line and coastal Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as India, the area needed representation of some form; True, Saba was not the powerhouse it used to be a few centuries prior to the mod's start, however Himyar which would rise a few centuries later was out of the question, and the faction still in control of the crown-jewel of Yemen, Mar'ib, was still Saba, and the fact of the matter is that until the Sassanian annexation of the area during the Chosroïd era, Sabaeans continued to be influential in domestic affairs, until the Abyssinians had invaded the Himyarites (Prompting the first Sassanian detachment to this distant corner of Arabia). The Sabaeans appear to not only be a cosmopolitan culture, but also highly literate. They serve well as a showcase of pre-Islamic Southern Arabian culture.

[Ibrahim]

I love this thread.

I'm very much interested in Hellen-Sino relations, and this is pretty awesome.

I second that. in fact. all this arguing and debating on china gives me an idea: why doesn't anybody make a mod about the warring states, for the express purpose of making a comparison? (i know one was made(also there was a 3 kingdoms mod), but i see no download). I already see alot of primary research here, and since in theory you can have ...

never mind forget it-now i look and feel stupid..forgot about china's massive size, andfthe engine's limitations.:embarassed:

anyways, I have one interesting question, bugging me for a while: what did chinese sound like in 220BC? I noticed that the poems writtwen back then do not rhyme at all very well, and figure there is something wrong with that: have any reconstructyions been offered?

[satalexton]

There is one out there somewhere...just not EB grade thats all. If i knew anything bout modding I'd start an EB spinoff ages ago...

[Jolt]

a diagram of its operation in chinese,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/Keravnos2/chinesecrossobowdiagram.jpg

Not to forget that Zhuge Liang later invented a type of an improved Arbalest (Chuko/Zhuge's Nu), which would improve the firepower of the Chinese Army.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Zgn-1.jpg

It would not only fire repeated bolts, but also fire further than Qin's/Han's former crossbows. That coupled with the huge numbers of the Chinese army and it's mass deployment among soldiers meant huge casualties if it happened to fight against non-Western (And less numerous) opponents.

[satalexton]

Thats a common misconception. That is called the Lian Nu, and has been invented long before Zhuge Liang's even born.
Li Guang used the large mounted varient mounted on chariots to literally hose down charging XiongNu horsemen during the WuDi period. The handheld varient actually has a shorter range than regular crossbow, but being able to shoot as fast as the hand can crank the lever always helps.

The real Zhuge Nu is actually a crossbow that fires multipule bolts at the same time.

[MeinPanzer]

On the matter of Saba, we felt also that due to Parthian interactions throughout the Arabian coast-line and coastal Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as India, the area needed representation of some form; True, Saba was not the powerhouse it used to be a few centuries prior to the mod's start, however Himyar which would rise a few centuries later was out of the question, and the faction still in control of the crown-jewel of Yemen, Mar'ib, was still Saba, and the fact of the matter is that until the Sassanian annexation of the area during the Chosroïd era, Sabaeans continued to be influential in domestic affairs, until the Abyssinians had invaded the Himyarites (Prompting the first Sassanian detachment to this distant corner of Arabia). The Sabaeans appear to not only be a cosmopolitan culture, but also highly literate. They serve well as a showcase of pre-Islamic Southern Arabian culture.

I don't disagree with the thought behind including the Saba in EB, and I think the team did a good job of including a faction in southern Arabia that is difficult to implement in a world engine like RTW's. My basis for mentioning the Sabaeans is that the criteria being put forth here for a possible inclusion of China in EB or an EB-like game would be its influence and the likeliness of that faction interacting with the west beyond just trade and brief contact.

I think, however, that when looked at objectively (and I am arguing from the point of view of a game engine in which it would be possible to fully implement China as a region), there is more reason to include China, because of direct interaction and battling with major forces such as the Xiongnu, Yuezhi, and the Saka, and because of an ability shown in history to reach across the boundary between east and west presented by the Tarim basin, than there is to include the Sabaeans or Himyarites because those states, though they had trade contacts with other factions, did not directly fight other major factions, nor did they show a particular streak for expansionism, and so were historically more isolated.

[chairman]

I go away for two weeks and this awesome thread on ancient China, complete with hypothetical Rome vs China and Qin battle strategraphs (if this isn't a word, I claim the dibs to coin it). I just got back from a family trip to Xi'an, China to visit old friends and pack up some stuff we left when we moved back to the States. I'll join the discussion in an hour or less.

Chairman

[lobf]

Most importantly, improved logistics; China, no matter the dynasty, had a military force which could sustain itself viably in ratio to its population base, and many contemporary Chinese sources, in particular the historical basis of the "Romance"-era, mention armies ranking upwards hundreds of thousands, divided in gigantic plates. This is a drastically different way of warfare altogether. Interesting, but different.


One quick question: Wasn't something mentioned on these forums recently about nations recording larger armies than they actually fielded? Or am I misunderstanding China's historical population?


I second that. in fact. all this arguing and debating on china gives me an idea: why doesn't anybody make a mod about the warring states, for the express purpose of making a comparison? (i know one was made(also there was a 3 kingdoms mod), but i see no download). I already see alot of primary research here, and since in theory you can have ...


Heh, that's like saying, "We've got all the parts, let's build a car."

[satalexton]

Chinese recorders tend to have a nasty habit of recording total combat personel commited in a campaign as their total strength...then round that number to the nearest 5 D=

For example, if a 100,000 force is dispatched, only 60,000 will actually take part. the other 40,000 are the raw recruits tasked with guarding the camp, baggage train, any out-posts along the way and etc. They will not take ANY active part in the campaign even if the other 60,000 gets wiped out.

[Majd il-Romani]

OK we get it, it won't be possible for China to be in EB (but Europe took over much of America and surley that must have taken a MUCH bigger supply train and reinforcement train and a longer and harder voyage than a possible Roman invasion of India or China) but we all need to admit that it would be EXTREMELY BADASS and totally AWESOME for the eastern border to be extended to Japan

[Cimon]

Well, I checked Shadow of the Silk Road and the following is the story that Thubron relates. The story is that the remnants of Crassus legions, captured at Carrhae, were sent by the Parthians to guard the Eastern frontier. When Rome requested that the soldiers be repatriated in 20 BC, they apparently could not be found. (I believe this comes from Plutarch).

Thubron relates that, according to an Oxford Sinologist named Homer Dubs (for whom I neither can nor cannot vouch, as I know nothing about him. Can anyone evaluate Dubs for us?) discovered an account of the Han dynasty military attacking a "Hunnish chief" where some elite soldiers guarded the stockade in a "fish-scale" formation, which Dubs took to be the testudo. After the Chinese victory, the soldiers were, according to Dubs, captured and resettled in the Gansu corridor. Apparently, it was Chinese practice to name settlements after those who were settled there. At that time, in Han dynasty records, there appears in the Gansu corridor a settlement named "Lijian" (which I have also seen written as Liqian). Lijian is the Chinese corrupt translation of Alexandria, which was synonymous in China with the Roman empire. Very soon afterward, Lijian was briefly renamed "Jielu," which means "Captives from the Storming."

In 1993, some archaeologists digging near the village of Zhelaizhai in Yongchang county (Gansu corridor) identified Roman-era (although not necessarily Roman) walls. The people in Zhelaizhai do appear to have fairer features, including a higher incidence of lighter hair and eyes, as well as curly hair. Thubron meets the caretaker of the Yongchang museum, who is known among the locals as "the redhead." A Beijin geneticist took blood and urine samples from 200 local inhabitants, and forty of the people showed some trace of Indo-European ancestry.

None of this is definitive of course. First of all, nothing here specifically screams "ROMAN." Second, Thubron's book is a singular source, and not even an academic one at that. Third, I would like to know how Dubs is thought of in the academic community. Fourth, even Thubron himself (again, not a scholar, but his opinion still means something since he was there), while finding the idea intriguing, eventually decides that there is probably not enough evidence to be Roman, and, as he writes it, "Little by little, in my sad imagination, Wang's [a person he meets with hazel-green eyes and curly cinnamon-colored hair with Western facial structure] Roman helmet was being dislodged by a Sogdian peaked hat or a Persian cap."

The locals, however, certainly believe it: in Yongchang, there is a statue (recently erected) of a Chinese mandarin flanked by a Roman soldier and Roman matron. Probably not true (or at least unprovable), but a fun story nonetheless.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I don't disagree with the thought behind including the Saba in EB, and I think the team did a good job of including a faction in southern Arabia that is difficult to implement in a world engine like RTW's. My basis for mentioning the Sabaeans is that the criteria being put forth here for a possible inclusion of China in EB or an EB-like game would be its influence and the likeliness of that faction interacting with the west beyond just trade and brief contact.

I think, however, that when looked at objectively (and I am arguing from the point of view of a game engine in which it would be possible to fully implement China as a region), there is more reason to include China, because of direct interaction and battling with major forces such as the Xiongnu, Yuezhi, and the Saka, and because of an ability shown in history to reach across the boundary between east and west presented by the Tarim basin, than there is to include the Sabaeans or Himyarites because those states, though they had trade contacts with other factions, did not directly fight other major factions, nor did they show a particular streak for expansionism, and so were historically more isolated.

Oh, I agree and I certainly see your point that China may in the greater context of macro-historical matters have been more important, and for the Parthians, Sakas and the Tocharians, the specifically Han Chinese would become a vital trading partner; It would be highly exciting to bring China, if we had the resources and the ability to actually implement them somewhat properly. Unfortunately, not even the East has received this lavish treatment (As you can see, a Persian province amounts to about three or four Gallic provinces in size alone), let alone India. It's a nice thing to discuss about though.


One quick question: Wasn't something mentioned on these forums recently about nations recording larger armies than they actually fielded? Or am I misunderstanding China's historical population?

I'm not really too keen on Chinese history in general, but it's a problem when it comes to for instance Greek sources which usually counts up ludicrously high figures when it comes to certain set-piece battles against the Persians. When native Chinese sources on the other hand provide figures well into the hundreds of thousands for both sides, and usually with the "several armies clashing at once" mentality, it's really more like the Chinese, in particular the highly romanticized "Three Kingdoms" era, brought a number of armies (And not just an army) fought several battles at the same time, making for a gigantic struggle.

Now given, we always have to take things with a pinch of salt, but China's historical population, at least during the crest of Han hegemony appeared to have peaked at 55 million individuals; By the Tang dynasty, the figure rose from 50 million to 80 million, after a series of disasters after the "Romance" era, Jin and Sui-dynastic eras (In particular the Goguryeo Wars which allegedly compelled the Sui to bring over three million men in the invasion of 612 CE). These were high figures for their time; Anatolia alone which had always been a population centre was home of as many as 15 million individuals.

[russia almighty]

lobf, I actually think the Chinese numbers are partially true. A lot of famous battles were pretty deep into China. If your army only has to travel a couple hundred miles from where it was levied, it be pretty easy to keep it supplied vs. say Persia and their 1 million man army invading Greece (which is a good example of early propaganda. "Hey bitches, **** with us and you'll have a 1 million man army on your door step, so surrender and submit.")

[satalexton]

Well, I checked Shadow of the Silk Road and the following is the story that Thubron relates. The story is that the remnants of Crassus legions, captured at Carrhae, were sent by the Parthians to guard the Eastern frontier. When Rome requested that the soldiers be repatriated in 20 BC, they apparently could not be found. (I believe this comes from Plutarch).

Thubron relates that, according to an Oxford Sinologist named Homer Dubs (for whom I neither can nor cannot vouch, as I know nothing about him. Can anyone evaluate Dubs for us?) discovered an account of the Han dynasty military attacking a "Hunnish chief" where some elite soldiers guarded the stockade in a "fish-scale" formation, which Dubs took to be the testudo. After the Chinese victory, the soldiers were, according to Dubs, captured and resettled in the Gansu corridor. Apparently, it was Chinese practice to name settlements after those who were settled there. At that time, in Han dynasty records, there appears in the Gansu corridor a settlement named "Lijian" (which I have also seen written as Liqian). Lijian is the Chinese corrupt translation of Alexandria, which was synonymous in China with the Roman empire. Very soon afterward, Lijian was briefly renamed "Jielu," which means "Captives from the Storming."

In 1993, some archaeologists digging near the village of Zhelaizhai in Yongchang county (Gansu corridor) identified Roman-era (although not necessarily Roman) walls. The people in Zhelaizhai do appear to have fairer features, including a higher incidence of lighter hair and eyes, as well as curly hair. Thubron meets the caretaker of the Yongchang museum, who is known among the locals as "the redhead." A Beijin geneticist took blood and urine samples from 200 local inhabitants, and forty of the people showed some trace of Indo-European ancestry.

None of this is definitive of course. First of all, nothing here specifically screams "ROMAN." Second, Thubron's book is a singular source, and not even an academic one at that. Third, I would like to know how Dubs is thought of in the academic community. Fourth, even Thubron himself (again, not a scholar, but his opinion still means something since he was there), while finding the idea intriguing, eventually decides that there is probably not enough evidence to be Roman, and, as he writes it, "Little by little, in my sad imagination, Wang's [a person he meets with hazel-green eyes and curly cinnamon-colored hair with Western facial structure] Roman helmet was being dislodged by a Sogdian peaked hat or a Persian cap."

The locals, however, certainly believe it: in Yongchang, there is a statue (recently erected) of a Chinese mandarin flanked by a Roman soldier and Roman matron. Probably not true (or at least unprovable), but a fun story nonetheless.

appealing as it may sound, the fish scale formation has been used by Qin since the end of the warring states, which was clearly NOT a testeudo. It was simply infantry arrayed in a checker box formation, allow one block to advance while the other fires, essentially steamrolling their foes.

[Cimon]

appealing as it may sound, the fish scale formation has been used by Qin since the end of the warring states, which was clearly NOT a testeudo. It was simply infantry arrayed in a checker box formation, allow one block to advance while the other fires, essentially steamrolling their foes.

I agree with you Satalexton. I was trying to say that it was untrue in my last sentence, but maybe not very clearly. I just thought it was an interesting story, while we were on the subject.

That is very interesting about the fish-scale formation, by the way. Thanks for the information.

Do you, by any chance, know anything about Dubs? Sounds like someone with an overactive imagination to me, but I am curious how he is viewed academically.

[MeinPanzer]

Well, I checked Shadow of the Silk Road and the following is the story that Thubron relates. The story is that the remnants of Crassus legions, captured at Carrhae, were sent by the Parthians to guard the Eastern frontier. When Rome requested that the soldiers be repatriated in 20 BC, they apparently could not be found. (I believe this comes from Plutarch).

Thubron relates that, according to an Oxford Sinologist named Homer Dubs (for whom I neither can nor cannot vouch, as I know nothing about him. Can anyone evaluate Dubs for us?) discovered an account of the Han dynasty military attacking a "Hunnish chief" where some elite soldiers guarded the stockade in a "fish-scale" formation, which Dubs took to be the testudo. After the Chinese victory, the soldiers were, according to Dubs, captured and resettled in the Gansu corridor. Apparently, it was Chinese practice to name settlements after those who were settled there. At that time, in Han dynasty records, there appears in the Gansu corridor a settlement named "Lijian" (which I have also seen written as Liqian). Lijian is the Chinese corrupt translation of Alexandria, which was synonymous in China with the Roman empire. Very soon afterward, Lijian was briefly renamed "Jielu," which means "Captives from the Storming."

In 1993, some archaeologists digging near the village of Zhelaizhai in Yongchang county (Gansu corridor) identified Roman-era (although not necessarily Roman) walls. The people in Zhelaizhai do appear to have fairer features, including a higher incidence of lighter hair and eyes, as well as curly hair. Thubron meets the caretaker of the Yongchang museum, who is known among the locals as "the redhead." A Beijin geneticist took blood and urine samples from 200 local inhabitants, and forty of the people showed some trace of Indo-European ancestry.

None of this is definitive of course. First of all, nothing here specifically screams "ROMAN." Second, Thubron's book is a singular source, and not even an academic one at that. Third, I would like to know how Dubs is thought of in the academic community. Fourth, even Thubron himself (again, not a scholar, but his opinion still means something since he was there), while finding the idea intriguing, eventually decides that there is probably not enough evidence to be Roman, and, as he writes it, "Little by little, in my sad imagination, Wang's [a person he meets with hazel-green eyes and curly cinnamon-colored hair with Western facial structure] Roman helmet was being dislodged by a Sogdian peaked hat or a Persian cap."

The locals, however, certainly believe it: in Yongchang, there is a statue (recently erected) of a Chinese mandarin flanked by a Roman soldier and Roman matron. Probably not true (or at least unprovable), but a fun story nonetheless.

We had a thread here discussing this episode a while back. Basically, the identification of the troops as Romans is tenuous in the extreme and would require a small group of captured soldiers being moved thousands of miles in order for it to have happened. The claim by Zhelaizhai pops up every once in a while and is baseless. There were plenty of peoples in Central Asia who had (and still have) light skin and fair hair, and they are much more likely candidates for these traces of Indo-European ancestry than Romans. These claims, like the one made that the Tarim mummies are long lost relatives of the Celts because they were tall, fair, and wore clothing with plaid patterns, are almost totally speculative and only really gain any sort of acceptance because they are parroted by those in the media looking for a sensational story whenever they do emerge.

[Ibrahim]

@ lobf: i said never mind..besides, its a random idea ( a flight of fancy), and i said explicilty it was a test mod (i.e what if mod). all that is needed is a complete roster for both, a study of what they did tactically on a battlefield, then a custom battle. no need for the complicated parts (strat map, etc). and bear in mind was referring to one battle hypothetical.:wall::wall:

now, back to subject: I get a feeling that what the chinese did in those wars rsembles something out of WW1 or 2: multiple armies, coming in waves, clashing in multiple areas. the first modern use that I know of that approach would be the civil war (multiple armies, multiple fronts going at it continupusly). the civil war had railways, industry, and modern commerce, but they had a terrible beurocracy, at least in the early days (judging by what I read these days..shoddy) chinese, from what i gather, had mass production, good roads, and most of all, a darn good beurocracy. both were evidently able to do the same thing. and considering, as TPC here said, that there were 55 million at the height of the han dynasty, many of whom made lots of food by farming, I say that the warring states and later times did in theory have the economic, social, and governmental base for a gigantic army. but i doubt any army, even today, can concentrate a 100,000+ man army or whatever bigger in one particular area, in the sense of an army. too many mouths to feed, roads get congested, and things will go heywhire, regardless of efficiency. the only conclusion, logically, would be that the chinese referred not to battles as such in the contemporary (hellenistic), western sence, but as in a modern, total war sence, with battles involving thousands detached in different armies, each in a different sector, going at another army in that sector, with the intent of battering the enemy's will to fight. reminds me of the "art of war" for some reason.

then again, i believe others have said the same, in a briefer vrsion.:sweatdrop::sweatdrop:

[Cimon]

We had a thread here discussing this episode a while back. Basically, the identification of the troops as Romans is tenuous in the extreme and would require a small group of captured soldiers being moved thousands of miles in order for it to have happened. The claim by Zhelaizhai pops up every once in a while and is baseless. There were plenty of peoples in Central Asia who had (and still have) light skin and fair hair, and they are much more likely candidates for these traces of Indo-European ancestry than Romans. These claims, like the one made that the Tarim mummies are long lost relatives of the Celts because they were tall, fair, and wore clothing with plaid patterns, are almost totally speculative and only really gain any sort of acceptance because they are parroted by those in the media looking for a sensational story whenever they do emerge.

I missed that thread, or I wouldn't have even brought it up. Apologies. I do, however, agree with you (as previously stated, that it is almost assuredly untrue.

[MeinPanzer]

I missed that thread, or I wouldn't have even brought it up. Apologies. I do, however, agree with you (as previously stated, that it is almost assuredly untrue.

Here's the thread if you're interested.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101459&highlight=fishscale

[Cimon]

Meinpanzer:

Thank you for the thread link. Very interesting. Only serves to help reinforce my previous suspicions about the story.

[chairman]

China is indeed a very different issue from the West when it comes to how many soldiers you can amass at any single point. As Ibrahim and Russia Almighty have said, there is a big difference between dragging a dwindling 100,000 man army through hostile, arid terrain far from home and concentrating the same full strength army on your opponent's doorstep over in the next province with a good supply line maintained by roads and river boats.

That's the other thing that people forget about China. They always compare China's internal traffic to a dry, riverless land like Anatolia or Persia (don't kill me because I'm making a comparison and not actually saying that's the way they are), when in reality, China should be compared more to Babylon or Egypt, with lots of intensively farmed agricultural land and numerous, large rivers capable of handling huge amounts of traffic. The rivers are one reason why China didn't develop as big of a saltwater navy as others nations (proportionally, since their navy was still big). On a river, you can built bigger ships and don't have to worry about them being sunk in a storm offshore.

All of this allowed the ancient and medieval Chinese to maintain astronomically big armies (compared to Greece or Rome) supplied and equipped in enemy territory.

Just to give some context, I lived in China for 12 years, so (not that I'm the expert) I have had a chance to see some of this stuff myself. The famous Terracotta Army of the first Qin emperor that were mentioned several times already are pretty cool, I stopped keeping track of how many times I've seen them after the eighth visit or so. I lived in the city of Xi'an which was the ancient capital of the Han and Tang dynasties under the name Chang'an. It's cool. :beam:

Chairman

[keravnos]

appealing as it may sound, the fish scale formation has been used by Qin since the end of the warring states, which was clearly NOT a testeudo. It was simply infantry arrayed in a checker box formation, allow one block to advance while the other fires, essentially steamrolling their foes.

"fire and maneuver" sort of, right?
Very interested in that. Can you maybe show a diagram, pic, whatever?

[satalexton]

I'll try to look for a scan of those military manuals...but don't put your hope too high, the webs fill with uncited jargon and I take those for jack crap. D= It doesn't help when the chinese are very laconic about their descriptions...

EDIT: http://imgsrc.baidu.com/baike/pic/item/310f3b1fffdce8dba786690e.jpg
This is the best i could find so far, a defensive variant of the "fishscale" formation...the pic's tiny dang it.

[satalexton]

Also, I would really go so far to say 'fire and maneuver'...I generally imagine a chinese battlefield as similar to that of the pike and musket....with less pikes, people standing further away...and no gunpowder...yet.

[MeinPanzer]

Also, I would really go so far to say 'fire and maneuver'...I generally imagine a chinese battlefield as similar to that of the pike and musket....with less pikes, people standing further away...and no gunpowder...yet.

From the Chkien Han Shu, which records the memorial of Chao Tso of 169 BC:


The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armored soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternately advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something which the Huns cannot even face. The troops with crossbows ride forward [tshai kuan tsou] and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armor and wooden shields of the Huns cannot resist. Then the [horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and bill; this is something which the Huns do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese.

[satalexton]

ahhh....Huo Qu Bing and his mounted infantry....=D they eat HA for breakfast, lunch AND dinner...then comes back for seconds!

Mein, y dunt u use pingyin instead...~_~

[Yuezhi]

So far as greek influence into Qin and the Terracota army is concerned, it might be absolutely nil. It might not. I just established the two facts both sculpting techniques had at the time. Realism and very liberal usage of colours. I also posted an opinion that I read somewhere, which did wonder about a relation, any relation between the former and the later. I fail to see the excitement in your post. There is a definite link between Hellenistic art and Hinduistic as well as Buddhist art.

How does sculpture techniques reveal the relation between the Qin's terracota army with the Greek art? I fail to see their relation. Even when two objects develop in a striking similar patter, that does not mean they necessarily have any connection to one another. The "cataphract" of China was developed much later than that of Parthia and Saka, yet there is no evidences whatsoever to show that the development of such heavy cavalry has any relation to the west.


Now given, we always have to take things with a pinch of salt, but China's historical population, at least during the crest of Han hegemony appeared to have peaked at 55 million individuals; By the Tang dynasty, the figure rose from 50 million to 80 million, after a series of disasters after the "Romance" era, Jin and Sui-dynastic eras (In particular the Goguryeo Wars which allegedly compelled the Sui to bring over three million men in the invasion of 612 CE). These were high figures for their time; Anatolia alone which had always been a population centre was home of as many as 15 million individuals.
A 2 AD census recorded in Han Shu suggested that Han population is roughly around 59 million people. The population of the Tang dynasty is roughly estimated in Tong Dian 80 million people.


Perhaps the Qin learnt the pike squares from the Bactrian sources. The Pi and the macedonian sarrisae are similar in that they're used in blocks to anchor a battle line...

Are there any evidences for this? Why Qin dynasty had anything do to with Bactria and Macedonia? I don't get this, if something is similar to one another, does that mean they are connected?


The head of a 'Pi' pike, long mistaken for a short sword, until long grooves left by the rotted wooden pike shafts were found where they lay.
Slow moving, pike blocks may seem out of place in a crossbow orientated army. But if one takes a look at the battle formations of a Qin/Han army such as the 'yan xing zhen' or the 'geese formation', he would appreciate the line holding properties of a pike block.

This weapon was not the main type of weapons of the Qin empire. The infantry still used the Ge, which was a traditional and distinctive weapon of China since the Shang dynasty. No evidences suggested that the Chinese used both Ge and Ji in the manner of the Greek or the Macedonians. It was not until the Han dynasty that Ji became to be utilised, as a kind of halberd both for slashing and thrusting.. The wild geese formation has been debunked for its invalidity here:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26432&hl=Geese+formation

Such a formation from Red Cliff battle might just be a pure form of imagination.


Han was nearly identical to that of Qin in fact, the only real difference really is that the source of motivation is no longer the threat of execution (they prefer the idea of 'court martial', seems more 'fair' when it's a bunch of your peers judging ya death huh?) and lobbing others' heads off to prove u got a kill. It worked mainly because the military is now under the hands of relatively more lenient regime (tho still using Qin constituitions and laws), a much larger territory, and a much larger population. The latter is particularly important because, despite every adult male are still technically considered as reserves, many people may never see military service in their life time. Thus the Han army is more professionalized and take up a smaller proportion of the total population.

Far from identical. Although there were certainly many inheritances from Qin to the Western Han's army. The significant difference is the ability to train and house a large number of cavalry that was so effective that they could defeat the Xiongnu and controll the Central Asia. Han's crossbow trigger also developed in a better and more powerful than that of Qin. In the time of Eastern Han, the dynasty witnessed a major change in armours as well as the rise of heavy cavalry. It was the first stage of a trend of development for "cataphract" in China, which would culminate in The Northern Southern Dynasties (better to be called Age of Fragmentation)

[The Persian Cataphract]

Actually, the introduction of heavily armed cataphracted cavalry into China proper is a far more intricate story; some have argued that it was indeed Parthian tribute in the form of well-bred studs of the Nisaean breed which prompted the Chinese cavalry to get increasingly heavier in armament and equipment. These were called the "Grass-eating dragons"/"Heavenly Horses" by the Chinese commentaries (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) retelling the western expeditions of Zhang Qian. He had allegedly brought a significant number of these animals, and I quote, two dozens of Nisaeans, and two-thousands of horses of other breeds, likely the Akhal-Teke/Turcoman and Ferghana horse. The title of "Heavenly Horse" was given to the Nisaean mounts by the impressed emperor Han Wu Ti.

The entire concept of the cataphracted warrior revolves around the stature and strength of his mount. If anything, this brief interaction of the Chinese introduction of Medean horses must have been quite crucial; now as for the heavily armed and armoured cavalry of the "Age of Fragmentation"-era, it is entirely another subject, and one which must certainly have been inspired of early Turkic inspiration.

[Yuezhi]

Actually, the introduction of heavily armed cataphracted cavalry into China proper is a far more intricate story; some have argued that it was indeed Parthian tribute in the form of well-bred studs of the Nisaean breed which prompted the Chinese cavalry to get increasingly heavier in armament and equipment. These were called the "Grass-eating dragons"/"Heavenly Horses" by the Chinese commentaries (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) retelling the western expeditions of Zhang Qian. He had allegedly brought a significant number of these animals, and I quote, two dozens of Nisaeans, and two-thousands of horses of other breeds, likely the Akhal-Teke/Turcoman and Ferghana horse. The title of "Heavenly Horse" was given to the Nisaean mounts by the impressed emperor Han Wu Ti.

The entire concept of the cataphracted warrior revolves around the stature and strength of his mount. If anything, this brief interaction of the Chinese introduction of Medean horses must have been quite crucial; now as for the heavily armed and armoured cavalry of the "Age of Fragmentation"-era, it is entirely another subject, and one which must certainly have been inspired of early Turkic inspiration.

The earliest record that proved the existence of Cataphract in China was in 312, when a Jie general, Shi Le, vanquished the Duan Xianbei. It was reported that he captured 5000 horse armours after the battle. In 316. it is reported that he captured 10,000 armour. All of this account can be found in Jin Shu (Book of Jin), biography of Shi Le. Therefore, we only have direct evidence that the Xianbei confederation at the time has already used heavy cavalry in the manner that similar to Western Cataphract. Apart from this, we do not have any evidences that directly suggest any connection in such a developmental scheme between Xianbei and other nomadic tribes in the West.

We also see no evidences that suggest full horse armours have been used in China during Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms period. It is also shown in archaeological evidences during Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms only give us a clear view that heavy armours are only developed solely to the rider, not the horse. The only schollar who uses the term Cataphract for Chinese heavy cavalry is Chris Peers, the author of those Chinese Warfare Osprey series. His use is simply arbitrary, not scientific.

All of your accounts cannot prove a definite appearance of Cataphract or Heavy Cavalry at all. What they suggest is the better and stronger horse from Central Asia replaced the small Mongolian horse. I do understand that conjectures in this thread should be put forward. Yet I simply see no consistence in making prediction without convincing textual evidences. :)

Furthermore, the famous historian, Albert Dien, also suggested that all of what we know shows us that armours in China developed entirely independently from the outside world. Not until the very end of Tang dynasty that the influence of Persian lamellar armour made its way to China and ended this independence.


some have argued that it was indeed Parthian tribute in the form of well-bred studs of the Nisaean breed which prompted the Chinese cavalry to get increasingly heavier in armament and equipment.
The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms. It was recorded that a type of chalfron and partial horse front armours have been used. Yet I am not expert in Three Kingdoms period to suggest. What I know is the heavy cavalry appeared due to the urgent needs from the inside China rather than outside influences.

[Intranetusa]

^ Lamellar had been in use long before the Tang Dynasty.

And Mongolians horses are not exactly weak. They supported heavy Mongolian lancers, and with these horses, they conquered the largest continuous land empire the world has ever seen. Their horses allowed them to triumph over larger European horses or western Asian horses.

[MeinPanzer]

The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms. It was recorded that a type of chalfron and partial horse front armours have been used. Yet I am not expert in Three Kingdoms period to suggest. What I know is the heavy cavalry appeared due to the urgent needs from the inside China rather than outside influences.

While it is obviously no evidence for the use of cataphracts, full suits of horse armour, including chamfron and caparison, for chariot horses have been found in several burials from the 5th c. BC onward. The 5th c. BC tomb of the Marquis of Zeng at Suixian, Hubei province, included several full suits made of lacquered leather. Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.

[Gleemonex]

Fascinating thread!

Nothing to add -- just cheerleading.

-Glee

[Yuezhi]

While it is obviously no evidence for the use of cataphracts, full suits of horse armour, including chamfron and caparison, for chariot horses have been found in several burials from the 5th c. BC onward. The 5th c. BC tomb of the Marquis of Zeng at Suixian, Hubei province, included several full suits made of lacquered leather. Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.
Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.


And Mongolians horses are not exactly weak. They supported heavy Mongolian lancers, and with these horses, they conquered the largest continuous land empire the world has ever seen. Their horses allowed them to triumph over larger European horses or western Asian horses.

Really? Could you state where did you find Mongolian horses became the main source for Mongol Armies. The horses that were used by the Mongols, the Khitans and the Xianbei even tend to be Central Asian horses. Furthermore, I have never said Mongolian horses are weak, they are simply slower.

[Cbvani]

Not going to dive into the argument here, but starting with Alexander the great, and going on to Sino-Roman Relations, and then reading up on the silk road, all on Wikipedia is a really fun way to learn about history.

[Majd il-Romani]

wait, I have an idea :idea2: what if there was a MULTIPLAYER-ONLY mod (like battles of asia) that could include Rome, china, and Aztecs, etc. We all get the powers of East and West (and maybe even New world) without having to worry about all f the limitations and hassles of campaign map. Seriously, anyone interested? We can get a team together maybe

[MeinPanzer]

Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.

There's absolutely no reason to think that these armours were anything other than actual panoplies used in combat, especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art. Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively. And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.

[Intranetusa]

Really? Could you state where did you find Mongolian horses became the main source for Mongol Armies. The horses that were used by the Mongols, the Khitans and the Xianbei even tend to be Central Asian horses. Furthermore, I have never said Mongolian horses are weak, they are simply slower.

You said the other horses were stronger than the small Mongolian horse, which implies they are weaker.


"The Mongolian horse—a small, heavy-boned, agile, and tireless animal that became instrumental when the Mongol armies moved across Central Asia in the 13th century—can also be viewed as a swift carrier of different cultures and traditions to the Islamic world. "
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId={30C85F84-D237-11D3-936E-00902786BF44}

[Caesar Salad]

Someone should make an industrial age mod, or better yet a Napoleonic one.

[Cbvani]

Or you could buy Empires when it comes out.... that's up to Napoleonic.

[Gleemonex]

Or you could buy Empires when it comes out.... that's up to Napoleonic.

And I'd bet a very important part of my body that there will be a Napoleon expansion. Although I'd personally prefer a "The Great Game" expansion myself.

-Glee

[Cbvani]

And I'd bet a very important part of my body that there will be a Napoleon expansion. Although I'd personally prefer a "The Great Game" expansion myself.

-Glee

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

[Marcus Ulpius]

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units. Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.

It looks "The great game" mod is impossible to develop with any of TW games available now.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units. Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.


Hey, never doubt the creativity of CA/game developers in general. Who says it is going to be similar to the current TW games. Just about all of us have trouble "thinking outside the box" on such topic, but hopefully CA doesn't. If they decide a TW game like that will bring them hefty revenues, then they'll do it. Where there is a will and a significant monetary gain, there is a way :yes:.

[Cbvani]

Hey, never doubt the creativity of CA/game developers in general. Who says it is going to be similar to the current TW games. Just about all of us have trouble "thinking outside the box" on such topic, but hopefully CA doesn't. If they decide a TW game like that will bring them hefty revenues, then they'll do it. Where there is a will and a significant monetary gain, there is a way :yes:.

Mmm.... last war I think a TW-like game could simulate is WWI. After that, it won't be TW any more. Give it 5 years. You won't recognize it.

[Gleemonex]

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

The Great Game was basically England and Russia fighting over the colonisation of Central Asia from about 1813 to 1907.


Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units.

Tanks and aerial combat units ('airborne' usually refers to para-drop infantry) didn't make an appearance until WWI proper. The Great Game would have artillery and observation balloons. Submarines could be "naval assassins", as they weren't used for mass raids or battles until WWII. You know, that would be pretty cool actually.


Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.

It looks "The great game" mod is impossible to develop with any of TW games available now.

Agreed. Anything past the Crimean War starts to diverge drastically from the abilities of the current TW engine technologies, with the increased range of rifles and lengthier, larger battles. The latter half of The Great Game couldn't possibly be just a mod, or even a content-only expansion. I'm even curious about how well the strategy and battle maps will work in Empires.


Mmm.... last war I think a TW-like game could simulate is WWI. After that, it won't be TW any more. Give it 5 years. You won't recognize it.

Even at that, it would probably have to be one or two generations of TW-engine away (or longer, if someone besides CA tries their hand at it).

-Glee

[Jolt]

Never had I seen a thread hi-jacked in such a manner. Here I came hoping to see more bitter infighting about China and people are talking about Napoleon, which has nothing to do with China. >_>

[satalexton]

necro+ hijack ._.

[Gleemonex]

So you wait until it starts coming back towards the topic (the difficulties of portraying the Oriental theatre in a TW engine) to complain? You both had some good posts up there [1] -- surely there's more where that came from...

-Glee

----------------------
[1] I'm a little jealous, actually -- I now live in China, but I have no contact with any universities, hence academic sources, with which to add to this discussion. Thanks for indirectly pointing me to chinahistoryforum.com though.

[AqD]

Actually, the introduction of heavily armed cataphracted cavalry into China proper is a far more intricate story; some have argued that it was indeed Parthian tribute in the form of well-bred studs of the Nisaean breed which prompted the Chinese cavalry to get increasingly heavier in armament and equipment. These were called the "Grass-eating dragons"/"Heavenly Horses" by the Chinese commentaries (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms) retelling the western expeditions of Zhang Qian. He had allegedly brought a significant number of these animals, and I quote, two dozens of Nisaeans, and two-thousands of horses of other breeds, likely the Akhal-Teke/Turcoman and Ferghana horse. The title of "Heavenly Horse" was given to the Nisaean mounts by the impressed emperor Han Wu Ti.

The entire concept of the cataphracted warrior revolves around the stature and strength of his mount. If anything, this brief interaction of the Chinese introduction of Medean horses must have been quite crucial; now as for the heavily armed and armoured cavalry of the "Age of Fragmentation"-era, it is entirely another subject, and one which must certainly have been inspired of early Turkic inspiration.

Goguryeo also used super heavy cavalry. I wonder where they got the horses from? Perhaps there are native horses capable of bearing the weight there?

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/931/koguryoiskorea.jpg

[Yuezhi]

There's absolutely no reason to think that these armours were anything other than actual panoplies used in combat, especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art. Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively. And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.

Then prove that they have been used!
Look at the linear of Chinese armour evolution, there are only 2 times in which Chinese imperial army used heavy cataphracts and horse armour in the sense of cavalry: The age of fragmentation and the Song dynasty. The latter was sparked by the widespread of horse armour from the Khitans and the Jurchens.
Peaces in the tomb could just be used for ceremony. We have plenty of evidences to suggest that pieces found in tombs are purely for ceremonial purposes and nothing else. Many of the dagger-axe blades found in the tomb of Qin Shihuang were only made for show. They are too slender that could not even withstand forces.


Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively.
What does this statement do with the debate. I have never said they are ineffective. Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.


especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art.
May you show us?

And even when these horse armours have been used in Zhou times, there are no evidences to suggest that they have direct link with horse armours in The Age of Fragmentation.


And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.
Blindly using archaeological evidences without consulting historical records is not science. If you want to prove that these horse armours are in use, then prove it. And more important, you should find examples in which it shows clearly that horse armour in mural tombs during Spring and Autumn period has anything to do with later cataphracts.


Goguryeo also used super heavy cavalry. I wonder where they got the horses from? Perhaps there are native horses capable of bearing the weight there?


Perhaps from Manchuria, I am not sure. But Koguryeo might develop horse armours based upon the Sui dynasty.


first ranks were pretty well armored in their lamellar bronze cuirasses and a lot of padding underneath)
Leather, not bronze was used in China before Han. From Han, iron seemed to be used as a replacement.

[MeinPanzer]

Look at the linear of Chinese armour evolution, there are only 2 times in which Chinese imperial army used heavy cataphracts and horse armour in the sense of cavalry: The age of fragmentation and the Song dynasty. The latter was sparked by the widespread of horse armour from the Khitans and the Jurchens.

You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms" by stating that horse armour is known from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. These, however, are clearly the panoplies of charioteers, and not heavy horsemen. Even if the panoplies were ceremonial, the fact that such "ceremonial" horse armour was found alongside a "ceremonial" panoply which we know was actually employed (as shown in a couple of painted wooden figurines from Chu graves dating to the 4th-3rd c. BC from Changsha province) strongly implies that it was copied from an actual, contemporary example. I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.


Then prove that they have been used!

Peaces in the tomb could just be used for ceremony. We have plenty of evidences to suggest that pieces found in tombs are purely for ceremonial purposes and nothing else. Many of the dagger-axe blades found in the tomb of Qin Shihuang were only made for show. They are too slender that could not even withstand forces.

As I said, there's no need to. Lacquered leather is an effective form of armour, and we find depictions of this sort of armour being worn elsewhere.


What does this statement do with the debate. I have never said they are ineffective. Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.

If you don't doubt that such panoplies were effective examples of defensive armour, then why do you think they are ceremonial?


May you show us?

And even when these horse armours have been used in Zhou times, there are no evidences to suggest that they have direct link with horse armours in The Age of Fragmentation.

By these examples I am referring to the parallels for the human armour in the tombs, which of course can also be found later in Dian art and in the panoplies of the charioteers of Qin Shi Huang's tomb. The horse armour of the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng is not dissimilar to horse armour from The Age of Fragmentation, which would suggest some sort of continuity. It could even have been that nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers and adapted it for use with cataphract mounts, as they did with the panoplies of Warring States charioteers themselves, and that this adapted form of armour was later re-introduced into China.


Blindly using archaeological evidences without consulting historical records is not science. If you want to prove that these horse armours are in use, then prove it. And more important, you should find examples in which it shows clearly that horse armour in mural tombs during Spring and Autumn period has anything to do with later cataphracts.

Again, you seem to have missed the point of my argument. I don't take these early horse armours as indication of the use of cataphracts at such a date, just that horse armour was already in use by charioteers at that point. If you want a specific parallel, look at the chamfrons found in the tomb of the Marquis and then the depiction of a chamfron from a moulded brick from Dengxian, Henan province - beyond stylistic differences, the general form definitely shows continuity.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

This argument is completely academic. There is no suggestion anywhere, that were it possible, EB would expand to include China. That is certainly not in our remit and I don't think we as a team would have any interest in expanding to an area of the map that had such little impact on the major theatres of war of the mediterranean and the Iranian Plateau.

Foot

This quote is /thread for the inclusion part.

As for whether it is possible on RTW, the whole idea behind the TW series is to REWRITE HISTORY. This is possible but high impractical IRL at that time.
The RTW engine is also NOT a good way to represent this at all. The whole distance to capital penlaty is a HUGE factor as well as supplying troops, keeping religions, and taxes at the right levels and the SHEER amount of mirco-management by said player to do so makes this next to impossible for the player, no-nevermind to the AI's

[Watchman]

Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.For one thing, it's not boiled. Jeez. That just makes leather hard but brittle, and as a side effect more-or-less edible before it hardens if not very digestible. Hardening leather uses rather more complicated procedures than that, most of which involve soaking it in some strange and smelly mixture (cheese and milk are involved in many of the processes I've read of...) and doing sometimes rather odd things to it.

For another, it wasn't all that "European" either. At least the Medieval brand was probably copied from Egypt and North Africa...

[keravnos]

Goguryeo also used super heavy cavalry. I wonder where they got the horses from? Perhaps there are native horses capable of bearing the weight there?

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/931/koguryoiskorea.jpg

VERY INTERESTING PICTURE. Any dates relating to that cataphract? Seeing that Goguryeo was founded around 37 BCE or environs it is most likely outside of EB's timeframe.

[MeinPanzer]

VERY INTERESTING PICTURE. Any dates relating to that cataphract? Seeing that Goguryeo was founded around 37 BCE or environs it is most likely outside of EB's timeframe.

Depictions of heavily armoured cavalry from burial chambers and funerary figurines appear for the first time in the mid-4th to the mid-5th c. AD.

[Yuezhi]

You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms" by stating that horse armour is known from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. These, however, are clearly the panoplies of charioteers, and not heavy horsemen. Even if the panoplies were ceremonial, the fact that such "ceremonial" horse armour was found alongside a "ceremonial" panoply which we know was actually employed (as shown in a couple of painted wooden figurines from Chu graves dating to the 4th-3rd c. BC from Changsha province) strongly implies that it was copied from an actual, contemporary example. I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.


That is not what your original purpose, you stated very clearly


Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.

I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.

These two statements show your inconsistency in arguing about the topic!
If the second quote is your purpose, you must state "Existence" instead of "development"
Since you have linked the ancient "horse armour" to Age of Fragmentation, you must have evidence for this linkage. I see no relation whatsoever. You have not even explained the big gaps of horse armour absence in Western Han dynasty as well. Of all what I am discussing, the sole subject is about heavy cavalry horse armour, and nothing earlier. Your arguments are therefore simply irrelevant.


You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms"
My statement is placed on the context of Cataphract and Heavy Cavalry of China. Or else what I am trying to say in earlier posts, chariots? Do you read my earlier posts? We are speaking of Heavy Cavalry, and strictly their horse armour. We are not discussing genesis or chariots whatsoever. If you want to say that cataphract horse armour must has derived from earlier chariot horse armours, then prove it! Let me repeat again so you don't get confused: I speculate that horse armours of heavy cavalry must have developed since three kingdoms. But I also say that I am not sure since I am not an expert on this period. My account on Shi Le is the earliest known textual records that state Chinese used full horse armours for their cavalry in the manner that we now call Cataphracts.


By these examples I am referring to the parallels for the human armour in the tombs, which of course can also be found later in Dian art and in the panoplies of the charioteers of Qin Shi Huang's tomb. The horse armour of the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng is not dissimilar to horse armour from The Age of Fragmentation, which would suggest some sort of continuity. It could even have been that nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers and adapted it for use with cataphract mounts, as they did with the panoplies of Warring States charioteers themselves, and that this adapted form of armour was later re-introduced into China.
How human armours could be related to our strict discussion, as we are speaking of horse armours? Looking alike does not mean they are related unless you could find answers from textual evidences or indirectly from the position of archaeological evidences. Otherwise, many Chinese armours must have been in relation with Middle East just by looking. All of what you are posting, to me, is very nebulous. You lack textual record for your arguments, and several of your archaeological evidences simply show little cohesion to one another.
Speculation cannot be counted to be evidence. Please show concrete evidence for your linkage. I have failed to see how "nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers" could be substantiated when we have no evidences of heavy cavalry in the form of horse armour of the Xiongnu. By what kind of textual and physical evidences that you base upon to conclude that nomadic horse armour derives from Chinese chariots.

Eventually, it is your claim of "development" that I am questioning and challenging.


Again, you seem to have missed the point of my argument. I don't take these early horse armours as indication of the use of cataphracts at such a date, just that horse armour was already in use by charioteers at that point.
Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.


If you want a specific parallel, look at the chamfrons found in the tomb of the Marquis and then the depiction of a chamfron from a moulded brick from Dengxian, Henan province - beyond stylistic differences, the general form definitely shows continuity.
I have failed to see how the chamfrons of the Marquis could be seen as a continuity of what found in the end of Three Kingdoms and Early Jin dynasty.


As I said, there's no need to. Lacquered leather is an effective form of armour, and we find depictions of this sort of armour being worn elsewhere.
I don't understand, where did I say lacquered leather is ineffective, and where did I say they are not depicted. We virtually have no power to judge that these armours could be counted as "Development of horse armour" as you have claimed.
To be concise, you must establish validity of how horse armours of charioteers could be linked to horse armours of heavy cavalry. Otherwise, they are not "development", since something developed from something else means they must have an organic and linear relation.
Of the fact that horse armour's genesis in China started much earlier than Three Kingdoms, I simply agree. I have never disputed about this!

[MeinPanzer]

That is not what your original purpose, you stated very clearly




These two statements show your inconsistency in arguing about the topic!

Not at all. Those two statements are not in the least mutually exclusive, so what is your point? Both are true - the origins of horse armour do go back farther than the emergence of cataphracts in China probably around the end of the 2nd c. AD, and the development of such armour, whether directly related to later armour or not, thus started much earlier (around seven centuries earlier, to be precise) than its usage by cataphracts.


If the second quote is your purpose, you must state "Existence" instead of "development"

You're reading too much into the specific words I am using. What I meant by both statements is that contradictory to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms," the origin of horse armour in China began much earlier than this period, and thus its development did as well.


Since you have linked the ancient "horse armour" to Age of Fragmentation, you must have evidence for this linkage. I see no relation whatsoever. You have not even explained the big gaps of horse armour absence in Western Han dynasty as well. Of all what I am discussing, the sole subject is about heavy cavalry horse armour, and nothing earlier. Your arguments are therefore simply irrelevant.

...

I have failed to see how the chamfrons of the Marquis could be seen as a continuity of what found in the end of Three Kingdoms and Early Jin dynasty.

Did you not read the statements in my previous post where I compared the form of the earlier and later armour forms with specific reference to evidence and suggested a reason why we may see a link between the two chronologically disparate groups despite the disappearance within China of such armour?

Since the only reconstructable portion of the Marquis of Zeng horse panoplies are the chamfrons, it is the most productive to examine these. There is a distinct similarity in form between the examples found in that tomb and the depictions of such armour on a figurine from Caochangpo in Xi'an; murals from the Three Chamber Tomb in Ji'an and Tonggou Tomb No. 12 in Ji'an; and inlaid and molded bricks from Danyang and Dengxian. There are minor differences one would expect, such as the style of ornamentation, but overall the form of these chamfrons matches very closely the form of the chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. This form, that of a "deep" chamfron covering the entire face and stretching down to cover the cheeks with holes for the eyes, is one not found elsewhere in the ancient world in the later first millennium BC or early first millennium AD.


My statement is placed on the context of Cataphract and Heavy Cavalry of China. Or else what I am trying to say in earlier posts, chariots? Do you read my earlier posts? We are speaking of Heavy Cavalry, and strictly their horse armour. We are not discussing genesis or chariots whatsoever.

Horse armour for chariot horses and horse armour for cataphracts are not all that different; therefore, as I've stated earlier, it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers, which is well attested. Thus, the charioteer horse armour of China during the Warring States period was probably reintroduced into China in the early first millennium AD, when cataphracts were adopted by the Chinese.


If you want to say that cataphract horse armour must has derived from earlier chariot horse armours, then prove it! Let me repeat again so you don't get confused: I speculate that horse armours of heavy cavalry must have developed since three kingdoms. But I also say that I am not sure since I am not an expert on this period. My account on Shi Le is the earliest known textual records that state Chinese used full horse armours for their cavalry in the manner that we now call Cataphracts.

And, since you seem to be confused: You state that the horse armour of heavy cavalry must have developed since the Three Kingdoms period. However, it is a fact that the horse armour of charioteers, which resembles the horse armour of the first Chinese cataphracts but not cataphracts of other parts of Asia, emerged much earlier than this period. Therefore, it is a logical hypothesis that the horse panoplies of these early charioteers, which are very similar to and could easily have been adopted by the later cataphracts, are linked to the armour of such later cavalry.


How human armours could be related to our strict discussion, as we are speaking of horse armours?

Because of the very reason that I explained in my previous post.


Looking alike does not mean they are related unless you could find answers from textual evidences or indirectly from the position of archaeological evidences.

Yes, it very much does show relation when considered within the archaeological context, which is what I am talking about.


Otherwise, many Chinese armours must have been in relation with Middle East just by looking.

Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.


All of what you are posting, to me, is very nebulous. You lack textual record for your arguments, and several of your archaeological evidences simply show little cohesion to one another.

You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.


Speculation cannot be counted to be evidence. Please show concrete evidence for your linkage. I have failed to see how "nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers" could be substantiated when we have no evidences of heavy cavalry in the form of horse armour of the Xiongnu.

Because, as you may not know, the archaeological record is incomplete, so sometimes we must work with considerable gaps. However, that is also what makes archaeology such an interesting area of study - because it requires in depth thought on such subjects. Our knowledge is thus not perfect, but by examining the archaeological context, we can determine similarities and dissimilarities, and thus come up with probable cases for the spread of elements of material culture, like horse armour. This study is almost totally divorced from literary evidence, since when that area provides us any evidence whatsoever, it is often vague and difficult to interpret. That's not to say that if there is literary evidence, it isn't useful, but in questions of the typology of arms and armour, the literary record leaves very much to be desired. I don't need any literary evidence to, for instance, tell you that the chamfrons found in the Korean and Japanese archaeological records from the fourth to fifth centuries AD are directly derived from Chinese examples - the archaeological evidence speaks for itself.


By what kind of textual and physical evidences that you base upon to conclude that nomadic horse armour derives from Chinese chariots.

To be more specific, a terracotta figurine of a "dancing barbarian" from northwestern China of a warrior wearing a cuirass very similar in form to the examples from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng and from various other scattered finds dating to between the fifth and third century BC is very likely a Xiongnu heavy cavalryman. See M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21 and “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г by the same author. From here we find almost identical examples of this panoply on a bronze figurine from Talas-tal, fourth to second century BC, and a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia from the collection of Peter I (Figs. 3в and д, respectively). Later, we of course find variants of this panoply being worn by figures from first century BC to first century AD figures from Khalchayan and Indo-Scythian coinage.


Eventually, it is your claim of "development" that I am questioning and challenging.

The horse armour of the Warring States period is by virtue of its very existence evidence of development before the Three Kingdoms period.


Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.

No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.


I don't understand, where did I say lacquered leather is ineffective, and where did I say they are not depicted. We virtually have no power to judge that these armours could be counted as "Development of horse armour" as you have claimed.

That statement was in response to your claim that the armours are ceremonial, as the usual argument I see relating to these finds is that "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Why do you think they were ceremonial?


To be concise, you must establish validity of how horse armours of charioteers could be linked to horse armours of heavy cavalry. Otherwise, they are not "development", since something developed from something else means they must have an organic and linear relation.

I've stated my thoughts on how there is a relation. Then again, given the gaps in the archaeological and literary record, they could even have been in use other ways and we may not have known it at all.


Of the fact that horse armour's genesis in China started much earlier than Three Kingdoms, I simply agree. I have never disputed about this!

Then why did you make this statement: "The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms." As I stated above, the development of horse armour earlier than the Three Kingdoms period in China is proven by the very fact that the Marquis of Zeng horse armour exists.

[Yuezhi]

Did you not read the statements in my previous post where I compared the form of the earlier and later armour forms with specific reference to evidence and suggested a reason why we may see a link between the two chronologically disparate groups despite the disappearance within China of such armour?

Since the only reconstructable portion of the Marquis of Zeng horse panoplies are the chamfrons, it is the most productive to examine these. There is a distinct similarity in form between the examples found in that tomb and the depictions of such armour on a figurine from Caochangpo in Xi'an; murals from the Three Chamber Tomb in Ji'an and Tonggou Tomb No. 12 in Ji'an; and inlaid and molded bricks from Danyang and Dengxian. There are minor differences one would expect, such as the style of ornamentation, but overall the form of these chamfrons matches very closely the form of the chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. This form, that of a "deep" chamfron covering the entire face and stretching down to cover the cheeks with holes for the eyes, is one not found elsewhere in the ancient world in the later first millennium BC or early first millennium AD.

And that the overall structure of "deep" chamfrons means they must have been closely related. What about a babuta and a Greek Attic helmet, or a German sallet and Greek Attic one, seems to be the same, must have direct relation. This kind of argument is just nonsensical and even arbitrary. More grave a mistake, a chamfron could prove that horse armour of Chinese cataphracts can be related to older horse armours of chariot. What kind of argument is this? Even with a chamfron from Three Kingdoms, most schollars still exhibit their hesitation in making this period the start of Chinese cataphract, therefore further put the development to the Age of Fragmentation.



To be more specific, a terracotta figurine of a "dancing barbarian" from northwestern China of a warrior wearing a cuirass very similar in form to the examples from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng and from various other scattered finds dating to between the fifth and third century BC is very likely a Xiongnu heavy cavalryman. See M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21 and “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г by the same author. From here we find almost identical examples of this panoply on a bronze figurine from Talas-tal, fourth to second century BC, and a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia from the collection of Peter I (Figs. 3в and д, respectively). Later, we of course find variants of this panoply being worn by figures from first century BC to first century AD figures from Khalchayan and Indo-Scythian coinage.
You could throw more and more words here, but nothing is worthwhile since no pictures have been posted. How do I know you are not trying to speak of something else. Presenting them here to be counted as valid.


Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.


I don't need any literary evidence to, for instance, tell you that the chamfrons found in the Korean and Japanese archaeological records from the fourth to fifth centuries AD are directly derived from Chinese examples - the archaeological evidence speaks for itself.

You may not need to, since you don't even know what literary sources point out the relation. I could! Korean came to contact with Chinese Cataphract written in the Sui Shu.


Horse armour for chariot horses and horse armour for cataphracts are not all that different; therefore, as I've stated earlier, it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers, which is well attested. Thus, the charioteer horse armour of China during the Warring States period was probably reintroduced into China in the early first millennium AD, when cataphracts were adopted by the Chinese.
Sure that cataphracts were imported from nomadic people, but

it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers
I still don't see evidence for this. The liangdiang armour and mingguang jia armours used by horsemen of Northern Wei have nothing to do with armours of Charioteers.

Funny, three books published by Beijing University in assessing Zhou and Spring And Autumns period presents very well that their armours seem to develop without any outside influence. Article by Dr Albert Dien also said the same thing. So what kind of "scholarly literature" should I expect?
Furthermore, what you are posting simply show that Chinese chariot chamfrons might be imported from Nomadic world, it did not suggest anything about full horse armour of cataphract related to chariot one, or cataphract chamfron related to chariot one.


Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.
OK, by your method of looking, tell me how this image lookes like anything I expect to find in an Assyrian chariot, or a Scythian one
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=680&hl=Chinese%20chariot&st=30
The image is of post 35, showing the armour of the charioteers excavated from Tomb Marquis of Zeng
Furthermore, armours of charioteers are found in leather materials right here:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18922
Image is in post 2. The helmet itself is shown very clear as well.

Do you expect me to believe that these armours are found in other cultures. Then bring images here, especially those of charioteers that you claim to be an influence from nomadic culture.

Your chamfrons, do they look like these:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19351&st=15&start=15

Or do they look like the one found in Ma-Kailing shown in post 18 of the same thread?


Then why did you make this statement: "The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms." As I stated above, the development of horse armour earlier than the Three Kingdoms period in China is proven by the very fact that the Marquis of Zeng horse armour exists.
Simple, because I am point at the Cataphract Armour, not those chariots, understand? Did you read back my previous posts? The fact that horse armour is in the tomb of Marquis of Zeng is simply irrelevant to what I am saying. Since what are spoken is all about Chinese Cataphract armours and not chariot ones. I have not agreed on your "looking method" yet, so I will not accept your argument to be valid.


No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.
I approach to History by both historical records and archaeological evidence. If you have problems with it, that is your misunderstanding.


Because, as you may not know, the archaeological record is incomplete, so sometimes we must work with considerable gaps. However, that is also what makes archaeology such an interesting area of study - because it requires in depth thought on such subjects. Our knowledge is thus not perfect, but by examining the archaeological context, we can determine similarities and dissimilarities, and thus come up with probable cases for the spread of elements of material culture, like horse armour.
Then what you are speaking, about the relationship between ancient horse armour from chariots and Cataphract horse armour is just a bunch of speculations. You therefore propose possible approach to the question and so I can take it. But if you count them as concrete evidence, then I will dispute.


That statement was in response to your claim that the armours are ceremonial, as the usual argument I see relating to these finds is that "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Why do you think they were ceremonial?
And I have never said the former, only the latter. Where did "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Are you fabricating my arguments?

Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.


You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.

What evidences, a pile of words and quote, where no pictures have been shown, blame yourself for my dismissal.

[Subotan]

Woah, I'm confused, what's the argument again?

[The Persian Cataphract]

This is no way of conducting a proper discourse. If you cannot discuss without getting upset, the whole point of achieving the last word or reaching to a consensus, or even a friendly acceptive dissensus becomes void.

Keep it clean. MeinPanzer's references come from journals (Sometimes obscure, but highly recommendable Russian titles; Gorelik is a head-figure of anything pertaining to arms and armour of Central Asia), which may or may not contain properties such as figures, photographies, and artistic reconstructions. He is already providing the specifics. Asking him for these in a courteous manner in order to find out more, will leave two satisfied parts; bellowing at him to "show his face" as if this was a duel is not at all an approach that I would suggest.

[MeinPanzer]

Since this argument seems to be devolving steadily and point-by-point debate won't result in any sort of conclusion, I'll just summarize my response to the main points. I will provide citations for the figures and references to which I refer, which is standard academic practice. You can check these sources yourself to investigate further.

We know that the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng contained 12 human panoplies (Cheng Dong, Zhong Shao-yi, Zhang Bo-zhi, and Zhang Tao, Ancient Chinese Weapons – A Collection of Pictures, The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, Peking, 1990, Fig. 4-112; Yang Hong, Weapons in Ancient China, Science Press, New York, 1992, p. 116, Figs. 167-171) and horse armour including two chamfrons (Dong et al., 4-119; Hong, p. 116, Fig. 172-174). Though this is the only example of horse armour from this time period, unless you suppose that this is the only one of its kind ever made before the advent of cataphracts in China, we must suppose that this kind of armour emerged before the dating of this tomb (around 433 BC) and that there was some development involved.

A terracotta figurine from northwestern China dating to between the fifth and third century BC (M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21; M.V. Gorelik, “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г) clearly exhibits the characteristics of this type of armour which do not appear outside of areas of Chinese influence at this time. Those are a high, three-sided rectangular collar with an open front; a high waisted cuirass with a "skirt" composed of four rows of large quadrangular armour plates; and segmented arm armour. These exact characteristics are exhibited in a bronze figurine from Talas-tal dating to the fourth to second century BC (Gorelik, “Kušanskij:” Pl. 3в; Gorelik, Oruzhie: Pl. LIII 18. F.P. Grigor’ev and R. Ismagil, “The Cult Bronzes of Semirechya of the Saka Period,” in Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 3, No. 2-3 (1996), 248, Fig. 1.3; T.N. Senigova, Srednevekovyj Taraz (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1972), 9, Pl. 1, 15.) and again in a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia (Gorelik, “Kušanskij,” Pl. 3д; Gorelik, Oruzhie, Pl. LIII 19а-б; Véronique Schiltz, Die Skythen und andere Steppenvölker (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1994), Fig. 256). We further find components of an actual example of an iron panoply of this form dating to the fourth to third centuries BC from Chirik-rabat (S.P. Tolstov, Po Drevnim del’tam Oksa i Yaksarta (Moscow: Vostochnaia literature, 1962) 142, 148-50, Fig. 82; Brentjes, Arms of the Sakas (and other tribes of the Central Asian steppes) (Varanasi: Rishi Publications, 1996), 64, Pl. XXXIX; Albert. E. Dien, “A Brief Survey of Defensive Armor across Asia,” in Journal of East Asian Archaeology 2, No. 3-4 (2000) (hereafter Dien, “Survey”), 12.)

This clearly traces the spread westward of this type of human panoply, but what of the horse armour? This area is doubly difficult to discuss because the horse armour from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng was too jumbled to reconstruct except for the chamfrons and we only have a single, incomplete depiction of a cataphract's horse armour from the centuries BC from anywhere in the old world outside of China (from Khumbuz-tepe in Chorasmia: M. Mambetullaev, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, No. 3 (1977), 278, Fig. 1; Gorelik, “Kušanskij,” Fig. 3е; Gorelik, Oruzhie, 323, Pl. LIII 20; Nick Sekunda, Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1993), 76, Figs. 29, 30; Kazim Abdullaev, “Armour of Ancient Bactria,” in In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity (Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1995), 175, Fig. 6.6; Valerii P. Nikonorov, The Armies of Bactria 700 BC – 450 AD Vol. 2 (Stockport: Montvert Publications 1997), 4, Fig. 4g). However, knowing that nomads adopted the human heavy panoply of these early Chinese charioteers at the same time as the emergence of the cataphract, it is highly likely that they adopted such armour for their mounts simultaneously with their own adoption of such armour. This can also be inferred from the fact that the early armour depicted on the Khumbuz-tepe fragment is composed of large rectangular plates, like the panoplies found in the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng.

As to horse armour within China, I don't think evidence is abundant enough to determine when it fell out of use, but we don't find any horse armour associated with the charioteers of the tomb of Qin Shi Huang, so it was probably some time before this. However, when horse armour does re-emerge later (albeit for cataphract mounts instead of chariot horses), the deep form of the chamfrons employed is very similar in form to the restored chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng (Yang Hong, "Lamellar Armor and Horse Bardings in Yamato and Koguryo and their Connections with China," in the Journal of East Asian Archaeology 2, 3-4 (2000), Fig. 3). This is of interest because this does not match our depictions of chamfrons from anywhere else in the Old World at this time; it does not match depictions from Kushan, Scythian, Iranian, Caucasian, or Sarmatian sources. All of those peoples employed chamfrons which did not reach beneath the eyes, let alone the cheeks of the horse, and were often simpler in form. (The chamfron of the heavy cavalryman from the Canakkale sarcophagus does go below the eyes, but only slightly, and it doesn't even reach the ears.)

So, we may either propose two independent inventions of this style of horse armour, which seems highly unlikely, or we may propose a connection between the two. The connection need not be direct culturally or geographically, though, which is why it seems likely that nomads adopted this style of armour from the Chinese, adapted it to cataphract warfare and employed it themselves before reintroducing it to China some time around the last half of the second century AD. To provide a historical precedent showing that such reintroductions of arms did occur in the ancient world, Greek cavalrymen employed large round shields up to the fifth century BC, when using such shields on horseback fell out of style. This practice persisted among the Greeks of Italy after that period, however, and they later reintroduced it to Greece in the third century BC, where it became widespread again.

I've presented my perspective, and you can form your own opinion of it.