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

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

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

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