1.2 - further and farther, the Qin Dynasty??

[satalexton]

ahhh....Huo Qu Bing and his mounted infantry....=D they eat HA for breakfast, lunch AND dinner...then comes back for seconds!

Mein, y dunt u use pingyin instead...~_~

[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.

[Intranetusa]

^ Lamellar had been in use long before the Tang Dynasty.

And Mongolians horses are not exactly weak. They supported heavy Mongolian lancers, and with these horses, they conquered the largest continuous land empire the world has ever seen. Their horses allowed them to triumph over larger European horses or western Asian horses.

[MeinPanzer]

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.

While it is obviously no evidence for the use of cataphracts, full suits of horse armour, including chamfron and caparison, for chariot horses have been found in several burials from the 5th c. BC onward. The 5th c. BC tomb of the Marquis of Zeng at Suixian, Hubei province, included several full suits made of lacquered leather. Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.

[Gleemonex]

Fascinating thread!

Nothing to add -- just cheerleading.

-Glee

[Yuezhi]

While it is obviously no evidence for the use of cataphracts, full suits of horse armour, including chamfron and caparison, for chariot horses have been found in several burials from the 5th c. BC onward. The 5th c. BC tomb of the Marquis of Zeng at Suixian, Hubei province, included several full suits made of lacquered leather. Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.

Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.

And Mongolians horses are not exactly weak. They supported heavy Mongolian lancers, and with these horses, they conquered the largest continuous land empire the world has ever seen. Their horses allowed them to triumph over larger European horses or western Asian horses.

Really? Could you state where did you find Mongolian horses became the main source for Mongol Armies. The horses that were used by the Mongols, the Khitans and the Xianbei even tend to be Central Asian horses. Furthermore, I have never said Mongolian horses are weak, they are simply slower.

[Cbvani]

Not going to dive into the argument here, but starting with Alexander the great, and going on to Sino-Roman Relations, and then reading up on the silk road, all on Wikipedia is a really fun way to learn about history.

[Majd il-Romani]

wait, I have an idea what if there was a MULTIPLAYER-ONLY mod (like battles of asia) that could include Rome, china, and Aztecs, etc. We all get the powers of East and West (and maybe even New world) without having to worry about all f the limitations and hassles of campaign map. Seriously, anyone interested? We can get a team together maybe

[MeinPanzer]

Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.

There's absolutely no reason to think that these armours were anything other than actual panoplies used in combat, especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art. Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively. And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.

[Intranetusa]

Really? Could you state where did you find Mongolian horses became the main source for Mongol Armies. The horses that were used by the Mongols, the Khitans and the Xianbei even tend to be Central Asian horses. Furthermore, I have never said Mongolian horses are weak, they are simply slower.

You said the other horses were stronger than the small Mongolian horse, which implies they are weaker.


"The Mongolian horse—a small, heavy-boned, agile, and tireless animal that became instrumental when the Mongol armies moved across Central Asia in the 13th century—can also be viewed as a swift carrier of different cultures and traditions to the Islamic world. "
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_...-00902786BF44}

[Caesar Salad]

Someone should make an industrial age mod, or better yet a Napoleonic one.

[Cbvani]

Or you could buy Empires when it comes out.... that's up to Napoleonic.

[Gleemonex]

Or you could buy Empires when it comes out.... that's up to Napoleonic.

And I'd bet a very important part of my body that there will be a Napoleon expansion. Although I'd personally prefer a "The Great Game" expansion myself.

-Glee

[Cbvani]

And I'd bet a very important part of my body that there will be a Napoleon expansion. Although I'd personally prefer a "The Great Game" expansion myself.

-Glee

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

[Marcus Ulpius]

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units. Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.

It looks "The great game" mod is impossible to develop with any of TW games available now.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units. Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.

Hey, never doubt the creativity of CA/game developers in general. Who says it is going to be similar to the current TW games. Just about all of us have trouble "thinking outside the box" on such topic, but hopefully CA doesn't. If they decide a TW game like that will bring them hefty revenues, then they'll do it. Where there is a will and a significant monetary gain, there is a way .

[Cbvani]

Hey, never doubt the creativity of CA/game developers in general. Who says it is going to be similar to the current TW games. Just about all of us have trouble "thinking outside the box" on such topic, but hopefully CA doesn't. If they decide a TW game like that will bring them hefty revenues, then they'll do it. Where there is a will and a significant monetary gain, there is a way .

Mmm.... last war I think a TW-like game could simulate is WWI. After that, it won't be TW any more. Give it 5 years. You won't recognize it.

[Gleemonex]

Is that post-Napoleon, up to WWI?

The Great Game was basically England and Russia fighting over the colonisation of Central Asia from about 1813 to 1907.

Yes, that would be post-Napoleon world to WW I. I very much doubt this will be ever developed. The nature of combat and the theater of geopolitical action are vastly different from the previous periods. Just think about artillery, tanks, first submarines, first airborne units.

Tanks and aerial combat units ('airborne' usually refers to para-drop infantry) didn't make an appearance until WWI proper. The Great Game would have artillery and observation balloons. Submarines could be "naval assassins", as they weren't used for mass raids or battles until WWII. You know, that would be pretty cool actually.

Total war battle maps are too small for that. You can't even maneuver properly in a full-stack vs full stack battle because the map is very small. The campaign map would also include the whole world.

It looks "The great game" mod is impossible to develop with any of TW games available now.

Agreed. Anything past the Crimean War starts to diverge drastically from the abilities of the current TW engine technologies, with the increased range of rifles and lengthier, larger battles. The latter half of The Great Game couldn't possibly be just a mod, or even a content-only expansion. I'm even curious about how well the strategy and battle maps will work in Empires.

Mmm.... last war I think a TW-like game could simulate is WWI. After that, it won't be TW any more. Give it 5 years. You won't recognize it.

Even at that, it would probably have to be one or two generations of TW-engine away (or longer, if someone besides CA tries their hand at it).

-Glee

[Jolt]

Never had I seen a thread hi-jacked in such a manner. Here I came hoping to see more bitter infighting about China and people are talking about Napoleon, which has nothing to do with China. >_>

[satalexton]

necro+ hijack ._.

[Gleemonex]

So you wait until it starts coming back towards the topic (the difficulties of portraying the Oriental theatre in a TW engine) to complain? You both had some good posts up there [1] -- surely there's more where that came from...

-Glee

----------------------
[1] I'm a little jealous, actually -- I now live in China, but I have no contact with any universities, hence academic sources, with which to add to this discussion. Thanks for indirectly pointing me to chinahistoryforum.com though.

[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?

[Yuezhi]

There's absolutely no reason to think that these armours were anything other than actual panoplies used in combat, especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art. Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively. And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.

Then prove that they have been used!
Look at the linear of Chinese armour evolution, there are only 2 times in which Chinese imperial army used heavy cataphracts and horse armour in the sense of cavalry: The age of fragmentation and the Song dynasty. The latter was sparked by the widespread of horse armour from the Khitans and the Jurchens.
Peaces in the tomb could just be used for ceremony. We have plenty of evidences to suggest that pieces found in tombs are purely for ceremonial purposes and nothing else. Many of the dagger-axe blades found in the tomb of Qin Shihuang were only made for show. They are too slender that could not even withstand forces.

Lacquered leather armour was used by any number of east Asian armies throughout history effectively.

What does this statement do with the debate. I have never said they are ineffective. Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.

especially since we find contemporary depictions of such armour being worn in figural art.

May you show us?

And even when these horse armours have been used in Zhou times, there are no evidences to suggest that they have direct link with horse armours in The Age of Fragmentation.

And just because we don't have written sources explicitly mentioning horse armour does not mean it wasn't used.

Blindly using archaeological evidences without consulting historical records is not science. If you want to prove that these horse armours are in use, then prove it. And more important, you should find examples in which it shows clearly that horse armour in mural tombs during Spring and Autumn period has anything to do with later cataphracts.

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?

Perhaps from Manchuria, I am not sure. But Koguryeo might develop horse armours based upon the Sui dynasty.

first ranks were pretty well armored in their lamellar bronze cuirasses and a lot of padding underneath)

Leather, not bronze was used in China before Han. From Han, iron seemed to be used as a replacement.

[MeinPanzer]

Look at the linear of Chinese armour evolution, there are only 2 times in which Chinese imperial army used heavy cataphracts and horse armour in the sense of cavalry: The age of fragmentation and the Song dynasty. The latter was sparked by the widespread of horse armour from the Khitans and the Jurchens.

You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms" by stating that horse armour is known from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. These, however, are clearly the panoplies of charioteers, and not heavy horsemen. Even if the panoplies were ceremonial, the fact that such "ceremonial" horse armour was found alongside a "ceremonial" panoply which we know was actually employed (as shown in a couple of painted wooden figurines from Chu graves dating to the 4th-3rd c. BC from Changsha province) strongly implies that it was copied from an actual, contemporary example. I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.

Then prove that they have been used!

Peaces in the tomb could just be used for ceremony. We have plenty of evidences to suggest that pieces found in tombs are purely for ceremonial purposes and nothing else. Many of the dagger-axe blades found in the tomb of Qin Shihuang were only made for show. They are too slender that could not even withstand forces.

As I said, there's no need to. Lacquered leather is an effective form of armour, and we find depictions of this sort of armour being worn elsewhere.

What does this statement do with the debate. I have never said they are ineffective. Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.

If you don't doubt that such panoplies were effective examples of defensive armour, then why do you think they are ceremonial?

May you show us?

And even when these horse armours have been used in Zhou times, there are no evidences to suggest that they have direct link with horse armours in The Age of Fragmentation.

By these examples I am referring to the parallels for the human armour in the tombs, which of course can also be found later in Dian art and in the panoplies of the charioteers of Qin Shi Huang's tomb. The horse armour of the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng is not dissimilar to horse armour from The Age of Fragmentation, which would suggest some sort of continuity. It could even have been that nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers and adapted it for use with cataphract mounts, as they did with the panoplies of Warring States charioteers themselves, and that this adapted form of armour was later re-introduced into China.

Blindly using archaeological evidences without consulting historical records is not science. If you want to prove that these horse armours are in use, then prove it. And more important, you should find examples in which it shows clearly that horse armour in mural tombs during Spring and Autumn period has anything to do with later cataphracts.

Again, you seem to have missed the point of my argument. I don't take these early horse armours as indication of the use of cataphracts at such a date, just that horse armour was already in use by charioteers at that point. If you want a specific parallel, look at the chamfrons found in the tomb of the Marquis and then the depiction of a chamfron from a moulded brick from Dengxian, Henan province - beyond stylistic differences, the general form definitely shows continuity.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

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

[Watchman]

Chinese leather armours are just better than European boiled leather.

For one thing, it's not boiled. Jeez. That just makes leather hard but brittle, and as a side effect more-or-less edible before it hardens if not very digestible. Hardening leather uses rather more complicated procedures than that, most of which involve soaking it in some strange and smelly mixture (cheese and milk are involved in many of the processes I've read of...) and doing sometimes rather odd things to it.

For another, it wasn't all that "European" either. At least the Medieval brand was probably copied from Egypt and North Africa...

[keravnos]

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?

VERY INTERESTING PICTURE. Any dates relating to that cataphract? Seeing that Goguryeo was founded around 37 BCE or environs it is most likely outside of EB's timeframe.

[MeinPanzer]

VERY INTERESTING PICTURE. Any dates relating to that cataphract? Seeing that Goguryeo was founded around 37 BCE or environs it is most likely outside of EB's timeframe.

Depictions of heavily armoured cavalry from burial chambers and funerary figurines appear for the first time in the mid-4th to the mid-5th c. AD.