1.2 - further and farther, the Qin Dynasty??

[AlexanderSextus]

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

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

[AlexanderSextus]

multiple imperial armies that can number from 500,000

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

[satalexton]

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

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

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

I remember there are a few Ospray books around that does a decent job in portraying things properly, tho abit terribly outdated.

[AlexanderSextus]

Was Kung Fu used during the EB timeframe?

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

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

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

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


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

[satalexton]

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

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

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

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

[Jolt]

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

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

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

[keravnos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[satalexton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AlexanderSextus]

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

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

[Connacht]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[satalexton]

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

[Connacht]

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

[Che Roriniho]

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

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

[Connacht]

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

It would be possible only in custom battles.

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

[Che Roriniho]

It would be possible only in custom battles.

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

[Jolt]

Very well resumed explanation of the Qin Military System.

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

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

[MeinPanzer]

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

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

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

[satalexton]

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

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

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

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

[Jolt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[satalexton]

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

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

[MeinPanzer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Yuezhi]

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

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

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

A 2 AD census recorded in Han Shu suggested that Han population is roughly around 59 million people. The population of the Tang dynasty is roughly estimated in Tong Dian 80 million people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Persian Cataphract]

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

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

[Yuezhi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

some have argued that it was indeed Parthian tribute in the form of well-bred studs of the Nisaean breed which prompted the Chinese cavalry to get increasingly heavier in armament and equipment.

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

[AqD]

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

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

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