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...
Printable View
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.