
Originally Posted by
Urnamma
This discussion is largely asinine. Firstly, the Chinese were technologically different from the ancient Mediterranean, but not superior. I would certainly argue that the Hellenic kingdoms were technologically superior, and that rome was fairly similar.
You have to take it into several dimensions.
1) Logistics. Ancient Chinese states may have had armies of 1 million, what have you. They could hardly have fielded that many troops at one time. The largest army in the same place before the early modern era was at either Gaugamela or at Cannae. You cannot feed that many men in one place for long.
2) Fighting styles. Asiatic armies generally fought in a pre-military horizon style. Even the vaunted samurai still did this. They fought individual duals on the battlefield, and did not generally work as cohesive units.
3) the 'crossbow'. The Romans and Greeks had a similar device, the belly bow, and even then, it was found wanting. Crossbow bearers could fire one volley before the Romans returned fire with pila, cutting the lightly armored chinese down in kind.
Don't listen to everything you hear in video games and on the history channel. It's unbecoming and makes for horrible argument.
Also, the halberd... This is just silly. Falx, Rhomphaia, etc. There are hundreds of weapons the far east doesn't have.
Oh, and by the way. Those 'million man armies' got smashed by 30,000 or so mongols with no better technology than the ingame Sarmatians.
Bookmarks