I don't think anyone has any illusions about the Chinese making their way into EB... this is a hypothetical discussion.
Printable View
I don't think anyone has any illusions about the Chinese making their way into EB... this is a hypothetical discussion.
Not only is it hypothetical, but it is also quite enlightening. :clown:
Indeed, I have read every post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by irishguy1
Of course, W:TW would come in a collectors tin, with a free Concubine.
xD I could do with the concubine w/o the tin nor the game tho xD
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
: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)?
@Satalexon, Thank you for an amazing insight on the army of Qin and Han. Very much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
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/...recreation.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...struction4.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...struction3.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...struction2.jpg
this,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...nstruction.jpg
a diagram of its operation in chinese,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...bowdiagram.jpg
and a bronze crossbow replica of the period, found in a grave,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...ecrossobow.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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satalexon
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.
I love this thread.
I'm very much interested in Hellen-Sino relations, and this is pretty awesome.
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
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.
http://image.cnwest.com/attachement/...09f3d18527.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.
Bactria was Da Xia, not Da Yuan:Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
"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.
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.
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 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
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?
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
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.
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Heh, that's like saying, "We've got all the parts, let's build a car."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
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.
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.")
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimon
@ 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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Here's the thread if you're interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimon
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ight=fishscale
Meinpanzer:
Thank you for the thread link. Very interesting. Only serves to help reinforce my previous suspicions about the story.
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
"fire and maneuver" sort of, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Very interested in that. Can you maybe show a diagram, pic, whatever?
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/it...dba786690e.jpg
This is the best i could find so far, a defensive variant of the "fishscale" formation...the pic's tiny dang it.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Quote:
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.
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...~_~
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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...
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:Quote:
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.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...eese+formation
Such a formation from Red Cliff battle might just be a pure form of imagination.
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)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
^ 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
Fascinating thread!
Nothing to add -- just cheerleading.
-Glee
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
You said the other horses were stronger than the small Mongolian horse, which implies they are weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
"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_...-00902786BF44}
Someone should make an industrial age mod, or better yet a Napoleonic one.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
-Glee
Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gleemonex
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
It looks "The great game" mod is impossible to develop with any of TW games available now.
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:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
The Great Game was basically England and Russia fighting over the colonisation of Central Asia from about 1813 to 1907.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
-Glee
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. >_>
necro+ hijack ._.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
http://img68.exs.cx/img68/931/koguryoiskorea.jpg
Then prove that they have been used!Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively.
May you show us?Quote:
especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art.
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.
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.Quote:
And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.
Perhaps from Manchuria, I am not sure. But Koguryeo might develop horse armours based upon the Sui dynasty.Quote:
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?
Leather, not bronze was used in China before Han. From Han, iron seemed to be used as a replacement.Quote:
first ranks were pretty well armored in their lamellar bronze cuirasses and a lot of padding underneath)
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
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.Quote:
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.
If you don't doubt that such panoplies were effective examples of defensive armour, then why do you think they are ceremonial?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
This quote is /thread for the inclusion part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
For another, it wasn't all that "European" either. At least the Medieval brand was probably copied from Egypt and North Africa...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AqD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
That is not what your original purpose, you stated very clearlyQuote:
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.
Quote:
Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.
These two statements show your inconsistency in arguing about the topic!Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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"
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuezhi
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.Quote:
If the second quote is your purpose, you must state "Existence" instead of "development"
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Because of the very reason that I explained in my previous post.Quote:
How human armours could be related to our strict discussion, as we are speaking of horse armours?
Yes, it very much does show relation when considered within the archaeological context, which is what I am talking about.Quote:
Looking alike does not mean they are related unless you could find answers from textual evidences or indirectly from the position of archaeological evidences.
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.Quote:
Otherwise, many Chinese armours must have been in relation with Middle East just by looking.
You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
By what kind of textual and physical evidences that you base upon to conclude that nomadic horse armour derives from Chinese chariots.
The horse armour of the Warring States period is by virtue of its very existence evidence of development before the Three Kingdoms period.Quote:
Eventually, it is your claim of "development" that I am questioning and challenging.
No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.Quote:
Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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!
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Sure that cataphracts were imported from nomadic people, butQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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 oneQuote:
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.
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...0chariot&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/ind...howtopic=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/ind...st=15&start=15
Or do they look like the one found in Ma-Kailing shown in post 18 of the same thread?
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.Quote:
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.
I approach to History by both historical records and archaeological evidence. If you have problems with it, that is your misunderstanding.Quote:
No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
What evidences, a pile of words and quote, where no pictures have been shown, blame yourself for my dismissal.Quote:
You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.
Woah, I'm confused, what's the argument again?
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.
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.