1.2 - further and farther, the Qin Dynasty??

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

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

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

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

Originally Posted by satalexton

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

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

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Strabo 11.11.1

...In short, Apollodorus says that Bactriana is the ornament of Ariana as a whole; and, more than that, they extended their empire even as far as the Seres and the Phryni.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...Strab.+11.11.1

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

Originally Posted by K.M. Shrimali, Professor of History at the University of Delhi.

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

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2011...6001308400.htm

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

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


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WindGods.JPG


and the next one which I believe you will easily discover on your own... A man with a large club..

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

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

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

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...

Originally Posted by keravnos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2011...6001308400.htm

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

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


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WindGods.JPG


and the next one which I believe you will easily discover on your own... A man with a large club..

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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

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.

multiple imperial armies that can number from 500,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Urnamma

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

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

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

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

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

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

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

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

Originally Posted by keravnos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

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

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

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

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

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

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

Here's a bit of intersting info:

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

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

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

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

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

Common weapons of the Qin army:

Crossbow弩: Conturary to popular belief, Qin crossbows were not the best out of the 7 states.

For what they lack in technology, they make up with standarized production. All artisians would make each part to the same standard and each crossbow part are theoretically interchangable. One could technially take 2 broken crossbows apart and assemble a working one out of it. Each part, including the bolts, would have a number, the artisian's name and the supervisor's name engraved on it. If a part is inspected to be substandard, the one responsible will be (yes again) put to death.

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

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

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

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

Ji戟:A combination of the Ge and the spear. Originally a chariot weapon.

(bottom, the pointy thing above it are crossbow bolts btw)
When trading volleys using the crossbow, it's usually used as a make-shift charge deterent.

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

Order of battle (set-piece):

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


The white squares represent blocks of intantry, the characters on it are basically numbers/letters.
I haven't quite figure out what the rest are, perhaps somebody here can help me with educated guesses while I look for more books from the library?

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Rilder

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

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

You already have asians in EB though...


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

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

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foot

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Foot

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

Foot

This quote is /thread for the inclusion part.

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