Was the Han dynasty as advanced as ancient Rome? Economically and technologically
Yes, the territory was itself much more larger, which required a bureauctric class of citizens. Mandarins, master of laws and others, dedicated to the shaping of their society. on the other hand the roman bureaucraty was ''fill your pocket and run'' still. from all i've red and learned, it's the main flaw in my eyes.
Yes and yes.
Not even close, desu
>>458188
>mercantilism determines how advanced a country is
Absolutely disgusting.
>>458158
You're not a native English speaker? I bet you're CIDF?
>>458158
no it wasn't
Han industry was laughably inferior to that of Rome
as for that matter was their infrastructure, as the Roman system of roads, sanitation, water supply, and a multitude of others were unmatched.
China didn't reach its golden age until the Tang and Song dynasties.
>>458195
its the best measurable way
>>458195
>not reading the OP
>Was the Han dynasty as advanced as ancient Rome? Economically and technologically
>Economically and technologically
>Economically
汉朝的丝绸之路是世界贸易的起源
>>458262
Delenda est hango
Rome had better civil and military engineering, China had a better governmental system and agricultural engineering.
Both were pretty powerful.
>>458272
For you.
>>458095
Economically no, the market was very tightily controlled. Technologically it was arguably more advanced overall. I think the romans only had engineering and metallurgy over the chinks.
>>458272
>China had a better governmental system
How so? It was just a straight bureaucratic monarchy in no way more advanced than the principate, just if not more corrupted and even more reliant on vassal bureaucracies to take the weight off the main one.
>>458195
One society has steel weapons and armor, gold and silver coinage, and a professional military, the other has sharpened sticks but they have a really great spiritual life!
>>458401
just a hypothetical example to illustrate the absurdity of his post
No,we went throught this before,NO.
I get you are cool and hip and anti eurocentrism but the empirical data proves you wrong.
They were behind in production,construction,etc ,there is no quantifiable way of proving they were as advanced,facts show they were more primitive.
Mettalurgic production
KMs of paved roads
Number of bridges
Infraestructure
Construction complexity and quality
All points out to Rome but people will still argue that chinks were as advanced and some people have the nerve to call them more advanced even.
Europhobia is real.
>>458484
I'm not,I'm just tired how seeing this board turn into lefty/pol/.
I get it,you don't like white people.grow up.
>>458413
I'm Chinese so I'm going to be biased but imho there were many areas where China was more advanced than the Roman Empire. Perhaps not overall, but in many important aspects:
In regards to infrastructure, while the Romans had aquaducts and paved roads, the Chinese had far superior canal technology and used boreholes (some as deep as 2000ft) to extract natural gas. In addition, the Chinese had the wheelbarrow which, while simple, may not have existed in the Roman Empire. The Han Dynasty didn't have paved roads but to be fair, there was less incentive to make them.
The Han Dynasty produced far less metal than the Roman Empire, but I'd argue that their metalurgy technology itself was more advanced. The Chinese widely utilized blast furnaces and cupola furnaces.
Finally going on to complexity, the Han Dyansty invented the belt drive and used gears. They used hydraulics and water wheels and even developed seismometers. Also paper and crossbows. (I think I remember reading that the Romans had crossbows as well, but the Han crossbows were considerably more advanced).
>>459698
>In addition, the Chinese had the wheelbarrow which, while simple, may not have existed in the Roman Empire.
>based kongming
>>459698
The Chinese use of natural gas in antiquity is really, really fucking cool.
>>459705
>kongming
That reminds me that the Han Dynasty also experimented with small hot air balloons
>>458240
To be fair it's arbitrary as shit. May as well compare silk output between Romans and the Han dynasty.
Even with China's metal disadvantage, they had the best crossbows in the world, which would wreck any legion
>>458158
>roman bureaucraty was ''fill your pocket and run"
So that's how they administered all of Europe, northern Africa and large portions of Arabia and Asia.
I see, 'fill your pocket and run'. It's so elegant. It's so fantastic. It's almost like nobody else ever thought of that and Rome was able to effectively administer all of continental Europe and more with a 'fill a your pocket and run' strategy. What an important historical conclusion you have come to. Surely, Rome was able to exist for hundreds of years with a 'fill your pockets and run' bureaucracy. So smart. Wow. That explains how they effectively specialized their empire, how they mined precious metals in the West, farmed grains in Egypt, cut timber in Gaul etc. etc. etc.
Truly, a 'fill your pockets and run' strategy shows how simple European civilization was compared to the Han, right? I mean, surely, the Han had
>a bureaucratic class of citizens
As you so elegantly put it,
>Mandarins, master of laws and others, dedicated to the shaping of their society.
The Han, of course, were not racked with political and civil strife, no, their bureaucracy was far to advanced for that. It is impossible to imagine large scale rebellions occurring during the rule of a people with such a mastery of the bureaucratic arts. Clearly more advanced than a 'fill your pockets and run' system, such as Rome had. Of this you have thoroughly convinced me.
China had more advanced machinery but Rome had more advanced infrastructure. I'd say they were about equal. Rome was a more militaristic empire.
>>459730
I doubt a chinese army could "wreck" a roman legion. I don't know that much about the Roman military but couldn't top-of-the-line shields stop shots from a ballista? I doubt a handheld crossbow could be more powerful. Also Chinese armies tended to field peasants rather than a battle-hardened professional military.
>>459726
B-b-b-but silk c-c-can't make guns and conquering!
Never mind that it'll make you more prosperous than any other country, if it doesn't clang it doesn't matter!
Perhaps the biggest flaw of Ancient Chinese civilizations is the fact they had access to yet unseen forms of siege weaponry and tactics, but they cut their edge short by adopting the view that the ideas themselves should be hidden and contact with the outside world was pointless, because everybody else were barbarians.
If Genghis Khan and a group of rag-tag nomads could exploit them for their technology and use it to level everybody else, what makes anyone think the Romans would have had trouble doing the same if the two shared a border?
>>459748
>stopping a shot from a ballista
Maybe a really small one.
>>458496
>I'm not,I'm just tired how seeing this board turn into lefty/pol/.
You mean "not being /pol/?"
>I get it, you don't like white people
Thanks for fighting the good fight against the gigantic anti-white conspiracy, Cletus.
>>459748
>Also Chinese armies tended to field peasants rather than a battle-hardened professional military.
This is the one really big advantage the Romans have.
>>459759
>if you don't like white people you're not /pol/ and if you do you're /pol/
You're dumb dude
>>459741
Rome never came close to ruling all of continental Europe and barely controlled North Africa, and even less still of Arabia.
>>459765
you are either laughably misinformed or specifically trying to push an agenda. It is common knowledge that they did.
>>459765
And the Han were somehow free of any religious or civil strife?
Your point fails to address this, making it seem you imply so.
>>459771
What are you talking about? I'm just pointing out something wrong in his post
>>459769
>i-it's an agenda!
Calm the fuck down not everything is a conspiracy against you.
Pic related is Rome at its height, and it didn't even control that for very long. Most of continental Europe is outside of their control, as well as most of North Africa, which mostly hugs the coast outside of Egypt and Carthage.
They controlled even less of Arabia, unless you want to count the Near East and Mesopotamia as Arabia for some reason.
>>459760
Yeah in a military confrontation, the Romans definetly have an advantage over the Chinese. I think some Chinese posters here go a bit overboard, claiming that Han China was stronger than than Roman Empire.
The Barbegal aqueduct and mill is a Roman watermill complex located on the territory of the commune of Fontvieille, near the town of Arles, in southern France. The complex has been referred to as "the greatest known concentration of mechanical power in the ancient world".[1] Another similar mill complex existed also on the Janiculum in Rome, and there are suggestions that more such complexes exist at other major Roman sites, such as Amida.
>>459762
I don't think this is part of a liberal conspiracy to detract from white people.
Chinese people are seen as intelligent. All Asian people in general (except for southeast Asian) are seen as intelligent. Japan is seen as some super futurist super society, especially before their economic crash. Asians get good grades in school, and this affect the general joe blow. Most people perceive ancient Asian civilizations as super advanced, and with China inventing some of the most important things ever (like gunpowder and the compass) it's not hard to see why people think like this.
Listen, just because people think China was more advanced than Rome doesn't mean they hate white people. Just calm down okay?
>>459784
North Africa means the portion of Africa North of the Sarah Desert. It does not mean 'split Africa in 2 pieces and take the northern part'. Rome controlled the vast majority of North Africa. Are you going to split hairs because Rome didn't annex the Sahara desert? It was worthless.
>They controlled even less of Arabia
compared to who?
They controlled the large population centers in Arabia. Are you splitting hairs because Rome didn't annex huge swaths of the Arabian desert?
>>459810
North Africa generally includes the Sahara, differentiating it from Sub-Saharan Africa.
> It was worthless.
Of course, which is why they didn't ever bother conquering it, which is the point: they didn't conquer it.
>compared to who?
Compared to no one, this is in absolute terms. Only the province of Arabia Petraea ever touched into Arabia and it barely did so.
>They controlled the large population centers in Arabia
Not really, there was still Arabia Felix and large centers around modern-day Yemen, and various Persian dynasties controlled cities and swaths of territory in eastern Arabia where the UAE/Qatar/Oman is today.
At literally no point did Rome control "large portions of Arabia"
>>459805
The Barbegal aqueduct is very impressive especially for its time. But power doesn't necessarily indicate complexity. Han Dynasty China to my knowledge never built such massive complex, but at the same time, Chinese mechanical engineering was more advanced in many aspects. Chinese engineers had gears, belt drives, and several other mechanical technologies not yet present in the Western World.
>>459825
Listen here Hannibal, Carthage was a shit empire and Rome became the greatest and most influential after destroying that pos and pissing on its ashes.
The only empires to ever come a little fucking CLOSE to the level of influence of Rome were the Islamic Caliphates, which is actually a series of empires, and China, which is also a series of empires.
>>459858
>The only empires to ever come a little fucking CLOSE to the level of influence of Rome were the Islamic Caliphates, which is actually a series of empires, and China, which is also a series of empires.
What about the British and Mongols and present day America?
>>459858
I'd say the various iterations of Persia should also be up there, since it was a very large and long lasting empire at different points. While they were shorter lived I'm also pretty impressed with just how damn huge the Inca empire got too.
I have created memery you wouldn't even imagine. Bless anonymous posting on this board.
>>459730
Chinese crossbows were advanced, but they would have had trouble piercing roman armor and shields.
>>459870
Yeah the Achaemenid Empire had ~44.48% of the world's people in it. More than the British or Mongols or Romans
>>459873
Yeah I brought that up before. The Roman military clearly had the upper hand over the Han Dynasty military. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves. That said, military power isn't necessarily a good way to judge how advanced a civilization is.
>>459867
I was actually thinking about the Mongols but honestly if I listed too many civilizations it just wouldn't flow
Chinese Irrigation is pretty dank but Roman engineering is so above and beyond all its contemporaries and most of its successors its absurd.
>>459921
>Roman engineering is so above and beyond all its contemporaries
Care to elaborate? I personally feel Chinese engineering was technologically more advanced. They didn't build massive complexes the way the Romans did, but the Chinese utilized many mechanical technologies the Romans didn't.
>>459934
Chinese engineering had a few places where it acceled over the Romans but fall short a bit. The wheelbarrow for instance is fucking amazeballs. But Han Wheelbarrows had solid wheels isntead of spoked wheels.
When we find equivient techonolgies like water wheels, pontoon bridges, paved raods ect roman designs are just so absurdly more complex.
>>459934
>>459963
For reference, that aburdity of 8 waterwheels stacked ontop of eachother that was draining mines is the Rio Tinto waterwheel, its dated from around 100CE .
This is a trip hammer waterwheel from Han about the same time.
>>459963
Are you retarded? Han certainly had spoked wheels, you can find spoked wheels on Han era statues of horse carts. Wheel barrows had solid wheels because of simplicity. Some reconstructions also use spoked wheels, but I'm not going to bother to research if they're historical or not, because the point is Han had spoked wheels.
>>459963
But taking for example water wheels, the Han dynasty versions were far smaller than the Romans but utilized advanced mechanical technologies such as trip hammers.
Water wheels were then utilized for complex tasks. For example, some water wheels were used to power the piston-bellows of the blast furnaces by utilizing reciprocating motion. That's a very complex system to design. It may not be as mesmerizing as massive aqueducts, but it requires far more precision.
In contrast, Roman water wheels were only used for processing grain and draining mines (afaik), far simpler tasks.
As for roads, I'll give you that, Chinese roads sucked compared to Roman ones.
>>460014
Could you stop being rude please? If he's wrong about something, feel free to point it out but there's no reason to act like an asshole.
>>460025
If you aren't even aware that spoked wheels predated both the Roman Empire/Republic and the Han Dynasty by other a millennia, what are you doing trying to judge the inferiority of technology?
>>460014
Han had spoked wheels for carts and stuff but every reconstruction and picture I see from my source potrays a solid wheel
>>460084
The Roman ones or the Chinese ones?
>>460091
any and all. irrigation machines like water wheels, things on trip hammers, siege equipment, etc. etc.
>>459730
No. It's like one of those weird weapons you find in India. Sure, it looks cool, sparks the imagination of an ignorant westerner, but its quality is grossly overstated. The repeating crossbow barely pierces leather. Which still means they were good out east, since the average conscript (the majority of armies) wore little to no armor at all. But the Romans, on the other hand, would have undoubtedly shrugged any fire received of it, then they would have routed the encountered enemy. Period. Regardless of meme weaponry.
>>459805
>but Romans didn't invent any labor-saving technology -- they had slaves!!!
>>460092
Building a water-powered blast furnace could be pretty cool but finding actual plans on how to build one (rather than just descriptions) may be pretty difficult. Most of my sources are books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Shi#The_Water-Powered_Blast_Furnace
This has some simple descriptions though
>>460041
And what makes a wheelbarrow with a solid wheel so horrific? It has nothing to do with the lack of technology, which is what is being debated. It's that it clearly was not deemed economical, and the gains of a spoked wheel were questionable compared to the drawbacks for this applications. Most modern wheelbarrows also have solid wheels instead of spoke wheels.
>>460086
It's 4chan. Also wheels trigger me, because idiots think the wheel is so fucking simple they could have invented it.
>>460109
Slaves have rarely been economical to perform simple tasks such as pushing/pulling things. Slaves are useful in tasks where you need hands or to follow simple instructions.
>>459963 is an exception because I imagine it would be hard to get an animal into a deep dark pit and convince it to walk in a wheel.
But most other simple tasks that simply require power are usually better done by beasts of burden than slaves.
>>460124
>It's 4chan.
Yeah not a good excuse. Most people here already hate the Chinese. All the more reason to act polite. Behave better than them and they rethink their biases. Behave just as bad if not worse, reinforce their biases. It's a pretty simple concept.
I mean obviously you can do whatever you want, but your never gonna change someone's opinion by insulting them.
>>460139
>implying I'm Chinese
If I were a China poster, I'd know if wheelbarrow reconstructions with spoke wheels were accurate or not. I told you, fucking wheels trigger me like fuck.
Yo concrete.
![ChineseJunk1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/23l0vfc.jpg "ChineseJunk1[1].jpg")
Chinese had better ships. Multiple sails, junk rigging, and bulkheads meant the Chinese had better sailing ships than Europe up until the 18th century. The Han also had the compass, facilitating navigation.
>>460498
>have seafaring technology
>have gunpowder
>have civilization
>squander it all and be isolationist
Oh China
>>459881
Didn't it have literally almost all urban centers in its borders?
>>458095
Doesn't matter. China called Rome "Greater China." They admitted defeat.
>>459730
I know what your talking about and it couldn't pierce a piece of wet paper
>>460532
The semi-auto crossbow, right?
Yeah, making it powerful enough to be effective against more than unarmored peasants would hamper the "semi-auto" bit.
>>460498
>18th century
you mean 15th century unless you're retarded or severely biased
>>460504
Because they had everything they wanted and needed in their own borders. They represented such a massive market on their own merchants didn't need to go out in search of new ones, and merchants as a class were generally looked down on most of the time. To the east is Japan and an endless ocean, so nothing of value. To the north is steppe nomads buttfucking each other and coming to raid and conquer now and then, but nothing really much in the way to go after, to the west is empty deserts and mountains, and to the south impenetrable swamps and pirates.
>>460504
>dat faustian spirit
>>460530
Da can mean just great, not necessarily greater. Moreover, qin does not mean China, even though it's the root of the word China, China didn't refer to themselves as China. The Qin Dynasty was from 221 to 206 BC. The earliest known use of Daqin was referring to a mission done in 97 CE
>>460541
>and to the south impenetrable swamps and pirates
Who? I thought there were only abos in the south.
>>459730
shut the FUCK up
no single piece of equipment can contribute to military success
this is literally the sinophile version of the katana worship, or STG-44 worship.
>>460538
I'm excluding armaments and talking purely about how well the ship functions as a reliable and efficient means of transportation. Leeboards and centerboards weren't used in western shipbuilding until the 16th century, and bulkheads weren't adopted until the late 18th century.
>>460548
Flips, Pho, and Khmer.
>>460551
Pretty sure once you get to matchlocks vs people without matchlocks, it makes a difference.
>>460547
>Da can mean just great, not necessarily greater.
The Chinese language doesn't have gradation?
>>460555
Those are indications of relative overall technological, logistical, and economic development.
>>460555
nigga you forgot being ravaged by disease to that list
>>460557
It does, but they aren't inflectional.
Chinese generally doesn't use morphology, instead adding more words, so "great" is "da" while "greater" could be "geng da".
For some reason, many of the grammatical words aren't used in everyday language, could be because it's simply too much of a hassle to write, considering how long it takes to write a Chinese character.
>>460552
they sailed around the world without leeboards and centerboards so obviously that isn't enough to prove junks were better than caravels
>I'm excluding armaments
>muh colonial victimhood
disgusting
>>460557
It's like, for lack of a better example, big bear, little bear.
Da literally means big.
Big bear can mean just a big bear. Or in the context of a big bear little bear combination of bears, it means the bigger one. So it can be understood as simply big, or implied bigger, as big in contrast to a little.
>>458095
Reminder that both Rome and Han China thought of each other as great highly sophisticated civilization on the other side of the world.
>>458359
Roman politicians ran on bread and circus
>>459784
>Calm the fuck down not everything is a conspiracy against you.
Reminder that when they use the word conspriacy is because they are shills
>>460664
Who the fuck is that little guy between Rome and the beige guys I assume are the Parthians or maybe Sassanids?
>>460687
Is it Palmyra?
Because Armenia is the guys above them
>>460689
>Is it Palmyra?
Nigga I don't know that's why I'm asking.
>>458095
>the Han dynasty
I must unite the Chinese people under one flag
>>458095
I have a better question, Why were the Chinese so militarily backward? Why didn't they use legions and shields and short swords and professional full-time soldiers in standing armies?
>>460687
According to geacron, no one, and this map is wrong, Rome and Parthia directly butted.
Palmyra is in the right area, though, so it's likely that they were a client state which this map considers independent enough to show, and geacron doesn't.
>>460703
>muh benevolence
>>460706
Han Chinese had very large and heavy rectangular shields to help resist cavalry charges and projectiles. Usually only the front line soldiers carried shields, and they basically just carried the shield around and braced it. The rest of the unit used pikes or bows.
>>460715
that sounds rigid as fuck, even more rigid than the phalanx tbhlad
>>460715
Sounds like a Roman legion would have curb stomped their asses.
>>458496
Youre fighting phantoms fucktard
>>458496
WE WUZ ROMANZ
>>460706
>Why didn't they use legions and shields and short swords and professional full-time soldiers in standing armies?
But they did?
>>460735
proofs
I WANT PROOFS!
Where is evidence?!?
>>460735
>But they did?
Except for the standing army thing, no not really, not on the same level in the same way.
>>460737
http://www.rmhb.com.cn/chpic/htdocs/english/content/200309/8-3.htm
>A shield from the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.). Excavated at Yangjiawan in the Weicheng District, Xianyang, it is housed in the Xianyang Museum.
>http://www.diomedia.com/stock-photo-soldier-with-a-shield-painted-terracotta-statue-from-the-shanxi-region-china-chinese-civilisation-early-western-han-dynasty-2nd-century-bc-image18303584.html
>>460755
that only shows they had shields. Why do you faggots quote long posts and then when asked to prove your own points you decide to only concentrate on a single small part of the post you were "refuting" and ignore the rest.
Could it be because you were talking out of your ass?
>>460706
They had less people to fight against I assume.
>>460755
>they had shields
>therfore they had soldiers that operated similarly to roman legions
yeah no
china had some tech the romans didn't
romans had some tech the chinese didn't
most can be attributed to their environment, the romans didn't have lacquer, the chinese didn't have an ample supply of pozzolanic ash
romans had more seaways and put more emphasis on shipping and trade, the chinese had less and so had difficulty accessing high quality ores, putting more emphasis on metalworking and processing low quality ore
not sure what is so difficult to understand here
>>460777
>putting more emphasis on metalworking
they had shittier metalworking
>>460025
Welcome to 4chan grandma
>>460783
they had blast furnaces and scissors
>>460777
Only post i like in this thread
>>460856
I hate this entire thread.
That faggot probably thinks there is a "like" button somewhere on 4chan and maybe someone will give him leddit gold.
>>460783
>they had shittier metalworking
The Han Dynasty invented blast furnaces negro.
>>460912
First invented.
The evolved separately in China, India, and Europe.
>>459730
Administrative records such as the Juyuan slips note the draw weight/range,none of which belongs to the repeating variant.
I don't know why people are still citing Needham/Wagner's estimate on Han ferrous metallurgy.
Archaeological findings already show that there are far more iron offices than recorded as well as the multiple furnaces.(debunking Needham/Wagner's estimates)
>>460530
>China called Rome "Greater China."
Yeah, no
>>460783
>they had shittier metalworking
No, Chinese metalworking was considerably more advanced than Roman metalworking. The Chinese had for example, water-powered blast furnaces, which utilized water mills and belts to harness water power for piston-bellows in blast furnaces. That's level of complexity not found in the Roman Empire.
>>460908
or maybe I just like history >_>...
>>459784
Why would they conquer a bunch of desert? The portal areas, of which they did conquer, was the only significant aspects of Africa, including the Nile River.
Same goes for the Arabian Peninsula. None of it was significant compared to what they had already conquered in ME.
Conquering 2/3 of Europe where what's left is Germania, Russia, and Scandinavia is more than necessary.
It basically would not be worth further conquer. That would also disrupt the time period of Pax Romana, which further increased the welfare of the Roman Empire.
>>463008
>It basically would not be worth further conquer.
Didn't Rome try to conquer Britain and parts of Germany though?
>>463019
It conquered all of Britain up until Hadrian's wall. Those lands are rich on good soil and natural resources. Germania wasn't too bad either, but I can't recall any Roman attempt to further push their borders in the North.
The focus on stability became prioritised after Augustus.
>>462971
and the romans had glass chainmail and concrete, thats a level of complexity not found in the Han empire
>>460652
>they sailed around the world without leeboards and centerboards so obviously that isn't enough to prove junks were better than caravels
No, leeboards and centerboards are improvements. If you knew literally anything about sailing you would understand this.
>>458195
Iron, copper and lead are pretty important desu.
>>463008
Literally none of what you said contradicts my post. The fact that they never conquered any of those areas is literally my point.
>>459741
BTFO
>>458496
You realize that leftypol only has like 600 members . Stop getting so trigged you snownigger. People aren't from leftypol just because they don't want to circle jerk about how Europeans are the greatest thing in the universe .
>>459698
I'm pretty sure most of that stuff is post-Han. The Grand Canal, which is probably the most impressive feat of Chinese engineering, was a Tang dynasty achievement.
>>464017
Your point is stupid. There was nothing there to conquer.
No population centers. No arable land. No natural resources to exploit. There was literally no reason to expand into desert wastes.
It's like saying that Rome sucked because it never conquered that Atlantic ocean.
Your "point" makes very little sense.
>>464155
As a Romaboo it's pretty fucking retarded to think I'm saying "Rome sucks" or implying it. I'm correcting someone who said that they controlled most of continental Europe and Arabia, which is plainly wrong, and I corrected them.
Are you autistic or something?
>>464104
No virtually everything listed is from he Han period or earlier iirc
>>463147
>glass
the Chinese had Lacquerware (which the Romans never developed) which lessened the need for glass. That said the Chinese could and did produce glass although not in the same quantifies as the Romans
>chainmail
True but I'm not sure it matters enough to be relevant to the discussion. Chainmail wasn't exactly an earth shattering invention
>concrete
This is probably the most important one. The Chinese didn't have concrete or any equivalent substitute. The Chinese did create many alloys that the Romans didn't have however such as Cast Iron
>>460687
It could be Osrhoene.
>>463147
>chain
The Chinese had no serious use for chain. The armies they fielded were fucking massive, and armed at state expense-chain shirts are VERY slow to produce, and soldiers tend to steal them when demobilized. It's also metal intensive.
Roman soldiers were in until crippled, dead, or they'd served 20 years. On top of this, they were raised in smaller batches. The financial and time investment to armor them in mail makes a LOT more sense.
Societies that use chain tend to not have professional standing armies, or to ignore chain if they do. It simply takes too fucking long to make. Chain is the armor of relatively wealthy individuals who expect to be fighting.
>>460706
>Legions are the best military system and every classical empire should have logically aspired to them
Why did those Roman legions slowly transition back to spears and shield after the whole gladius-and-scutum formations that were so famous in the late republic/early empire? Because they were no longer fighting dedicated infantry forces like the Greeks, samnites celts, gauls, Briton (yes they used chariots, but they functioned almost entirely as transportation) and instead fighting equestrian forces such as the Parthians and Huns.
The Han Chinese's greatest enemy weren't infantry forces (though they did fight a colonial war in vietnam), they were (similarly) equestrian nomads such as the Xiongnu. A roman legion's cohesiveness and flexibility aren't going to make a huge difference if their pila aren't going to hit those nomads shooting at you from a few hundred meters out. The Chinese adopted spears and shields and a huge amount of crossbows for the same reason the Romans adopted the short sword, javelin and shield against infantry enemies, and then adapted to spears and shields against cavalry--because that was the tactic that was most effective against the enemies they faced.
>and professional full-time soldiers in standing armies?
They did. At its height under the Wu emperor the Chinese had a larger professional standing army than the Roman empire at its height, as well as the better-known horde of one-year draftees. The standing army system only truly fell apart after Wang Mang and the rise of the Eastern Han empire, where the empire took on a distinctly feudal form.
>>459798
It's a rather unfair comparison both ways. At its height in the early empire (Augustus, pre-teutoburg) the Romans would have crushed the Han, because this was the dying years of the Western Han. At the height of the Han empire they would have crushed the Romans, because this would be in 150 BC, at a time when their standing army alone outnumbered the Roman Republic and its pre-marian military. You can't make a practical comparison of military forces without taking into account changes in technology and differences in adversities. Just as the enemies Rome faced in 200 BC and the ones it faced in 300 AD differed, the enemies China faced in 200 BC and 100 AD were very, very different, and their tactics varied to compensate.
>>458095
>Was the Han dynasty as advanced as ancient Rome? Economically and technologically
No.
>>466631
...except the "huns" actually brought huge masses of germanic infantry to war with them, and these were the primary foes in the west.
The Sassanians ALSO had good infantry. Perisans have tended to field foot soldiers of all types in large quantity when going to war.
The transition happened because the army was shifting to totally centralized arms production rather than private contracting, and the soldiers were now expected to do everything form engaging in close order with tens of thousands of men, to fighting off small raiding parties in equally small bands.
>>464166
but I never said they controlled most of Arabia, you are making a strawman.
>>466670
>The Sassanians ALSO had good infantry.
>Perisans have tended to field foot soldiers of all types in large quantity when going to war.
You're being a little misleading their, implying those large quantities of foot soldiers and the GOOD infantry the persian infantry are anything close to the same. The vast bulk of the Sassanian infantry were poorly trained peasants. And I did not argue that the huns and persians were purely cavalry, but that their most effective forces were cavalry. In contrast, the Xiongnu were virtually all cavalry, which further proves my point that the two empires adapted to their adversaries as necessary, and it's silly to pronounce one system as objectively superior to the other.
>The transition happened because the army was shifting to totally centralized arms production rather than private contracting
It is a factor, not the only factor.
>>460504
>Thinking that history is a straight line
>Thinking that technology is a series of progression rather than adaptive according to the needs of a civilization
This is what uninformed fags actually believe.
>>466695
I listed the other factor right after.
The need for men able to skirmish, fight in loose bands, AND fight in shield wall dicated the use of smaller shield,s longer swords, and spears.
The javelins never really went away-lighter javelins and heavy darts were still wildly popular.
A western roman soldiers was far, far more likely to fight Germanic on foot than he was to so much as SEE a hun.
I agree that utility in fighting cavalry helped spur the change, but it isn't solely responsible, and I doubt it even qualifies as the primary reason.
>>459873
No, you're thinking of repeating crossbows which were simply one variation of the technology. The Han crossbow had 3x the power of a medieval European crossbow. So yes Chinese crossbows could have easily pierced through Roman armor.
>>466811
Were they painted red with horns? Could I get some citations?
Daily reminder that Han dynasty BTFO'd Xiongnu, who either became or went BTFO the Huns, who BTFO'd Rome.
>>460555
It's all relative, though. Being seriously outclassed will cause you to lose, yes, but this is seldom the case with comparable powers. It's like saying the basketball team without good shoes will lose: there are so many other things that contribute to success other than equipment that it is negligible. Yes, there are times when some nascent technology defeats tried and true methods spawning a new era of warfare, but not only is this rare, the technological advantage is lost once it is revealed and reverse engineered.
>>464203
>Chainmail wasn't exactly an earth shattering invention
How so? It was really influential in western eurasian warfare, for a long time.
>>467002
Devil's proof. You can never find the proofs that Xiongnu wasn't the Huns.
>>466985
This is an issue when discussing Han vs. Rome in a military confrontation too. Regardless of which side wins early on, both sides have the manpower and infrastructure to repeatedly raise new armies and adapt to each other well before either empire could exhaust itself unless one of them had a significantly less competent leaders than the other. The whole Han vs. Roman military goes down to "who would win the first battle assuming both sides are led by the brain-dead."
>>460527
It had a lot of the big ones at the time, and that's where the "almost half of the world's population" thing comes.
>>466670
>The Sassanians ALSO had good infantry. Perisans have tended to field foot soldiers of all types in large quantity when going to war.
Belisarius spoke derisively of Sassanid infantrymen. Said the only soldiers worth jack in the Sassanid infantry were the Daylami. Who were from distant Bactria
>>459870
>>459867
I would also remove the caliphates too, t.b.h. Islam itself is one of the most influential things to ever happen in world history. The caliphates themselves? Not so much. While influential, they share the spread and domination of Islam with too many others. Most muslims in the world live in land that were never part of any Caliphate and a lot of the rest live in lands that were part of it but were independent de facto for most of their history even when the Caliphates still existed.
>>460548
>only abos in the south
Mate please, there's the whole south east asia before that.
>>460687
The kingdom of Hatra or Araba, a semi-autonomous state within the Parthian Empire governed by local native rulers. Considered by some the first arab state, but not me.
The Empire of the Arsacid monachy was very decentralized and had this king of territories. Only Sassanians ended this shit. So there's no reason for Hatra to be marked as separate when the rest of the empire is shown as a single entity, to be honest.
>>460708
Geacron is not reliable source to be honest. It's the wikipedia of maps.
>>467042
>Belisarius
First notice that we have something written by him.
>>467154
Procopius' "History of the Wars."
Here's what Belisarius has to say
>"And as for the great numbers of the enemy, by which more than anything else they inspire fear, it is right for you to despise them. For their whole infantry is nothing more than a crowd of pitiable peasants who come into battle for no other purpose than to dig through walls and to despoil the slain and in general to serve the soldiers. For this reason they have no weapons at all with which they might trouble their opponents, and they only hold before themselves those enormous shields in order that they may not possibly be hit by the enemy."
The pride and joy of the Sassanid Army was the cavalryman. Their horse archers are the main troops. The cream of the cavalry, the knightly class of Savarans, were its shock arm/backbone. The infantry was merely to keep cunts pinned down or to serve as an anchor to the battlefield for their cavalry to withdraw to.
Muh concrete.
Muh aqueducts.
Shitposting aside, the Romans were better civil engineers.
>>466819
>>467002
It all boils down to design
http://historum.com/asian-history/65491-why-didn-t-ancient-chinese-use-plate-armor-like-greeks-romans-europeans-3.html
Heaviest standard 8 stone Han crossbow power = 516 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 4902 inch lbs
Heaviest Medieval crossbow found from Gallway = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inches powerstroke/2 = 4200 inch lbs
Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 3676.5 inch pounds
Heaviest longbow ever found, within Mary Rose = 180 lbs draw weight * ~20 inches powerstroke/2 = 1800 inch pounds
English heaviest battlefield use longbow power = 150 lbs draw weight * ~20 inches powerstroke/2 = 1500 inch pounds
>>467238
>3x the power
4902 is not 3 times 4200.
>>462999
Its not worthy of a rebuttal,I've done this dozens of times and this board never learns,for example "MUH CROSSBOWS" greco-roman civilizations had them and invented repeating crossbows earlier than Chinks.
I'm done with this board,it is really /leftypol/ you cannot have a discussion with Europhobes.
>>467173
I know the steotype, you don't have to teach me that. Here Procopius is portraying, as I said, an stereotype while emphasizing the quality of roman soldiers before the persian ones, rather than reproducing something Belisarius literally said. Remember than Procopius follows the ways of Thucydides.
Anyways, while stereotypes often exist for a reason and this case is not the exception, this vision of sassanid infantrymen being all untrained peasants has been nuanced by the scholarly vision. Sassanid strategy relied on cavalry charges first and archery second, nobody will deny it. This accepted though, even fairly old pop-oriented publications like Osprey's magazines (it's the source I have at my hands, sorry, but you're using another osprey work so it's fine) remember to mention that the Sassanians had and used regular infantrymen apart from the paighan peasants. This is not limited to the famous dailamites. This infantrymen were way better equiped and trained than the paighan peasants, they were placed in the center of the formation and sometimes they were able to face the normally superior roman infantry. All in all, my point is that "persian infantrymen were all useless peasant cannon fodder" is actually an hyperbole, product of some roman writers that don't make the effort to differentiate peasant levies from actual soldiers, and don't take into account that their eastern foe had way more problems to make use of the same numbers of capable manpower.
But this thread isn't about persians.
>>467300
The Chinese fielded armies bigger then 100k , the europeans biggest battle was supposed to be the battle of grunwald where approx less then 20 k people fought against 20 k = 40-50k
Now you do the Math, try to equip more then 100k people with full plate.
Not to mention that most of european armies weren't even how most people picture them.
>>467300
>for example "MUH CROSSBOWS" greco-roman civilizations had them and invented repeating crossbows earlier than Chinks.
Nope. What greco-romans had were mostly siege engines and artillery. Which were FAR from the concept of the 1 man personal use crossbow. All younger than the Chinese Crossbow.
Its like saying a civilization had muskets just because they had cannon.
The only thing that ever came close was the Gastraphetes. Which-again-was way younger than the Chink Crossbow. However it saw limited use as
1) It was heavy as fuck
2) Owing to the nature of Greek Warfare - in which Missile units were merely skirmishers and lumped in one unit (the psiloi) alongside javelins and slings, the Gastraphetes is the odd man out as it was heavy and took an ass amount of time to reload.
3) Not many significant numbers of them were made.
In the end the Gastraphetes was limited in use by defenders on a wall or on ships, in the hands of certain specialists.
Which is far cry from the lines and lines of crossbowmen the Chinese deployed as their first battle lines. In which each man had a crossbow in hand.
>>467300
>Comparing gastraphetes to a Han 6 stone crossbow
Time and time again the same data sets appear on Historum,only to be debunked by the same individual(s). (weak crossbows,Han ferrous metallurgy,Han lacked siege engines)
>>467350
See what I'm talking about? the level of intellectual dishonesty
First of all its pretty obvious I said REPEATING crossbows are earlier in Europe than China but you just pretended I meant crossbows because it fits your strawman argument.
Second you claim they had no personal use crossbows which is a blatant lie debunked by your own post listing some subjective opinions as an excuse.
We get it,you hate white people.
>>458095
>Was the Han dynasty as advanced as ancient Rome? Economically and technologically
Lol no the dynasties wiped out more Chinese than steppe nomads wiped out Chinese, and they literally got conquered and ruled by barbarians
>>467392
>ruled by barbarians
Barbarians who were stronger then vikings, the europeans were lucky that xiognu or mongols weren't anywhere near them.
>>458095
Bump!
>>467350
>HUUUR DE DUUR
It's pretty well understood that late imperial armies had crossbows, and of varying types types, from siege artillery and repeating weapons, to "regular" crossbows.
They didn't deploy them en masse, because, despite what you'd think, they'r enot effective enough vs a mass of men with shields and metal armor, and it's much safer to employ archers, who can continue to shoot even after the lines are joined, much as the infantry can hurl darts over their lines into the opposing rear ranks.
Chinese forces simply tended to be less protected than (civlized) western ones, and a lack of protection helps missile weapons disproportionately.
>>467398
>Barbarians who were stronger then vikings
Untrue. They lived in entirely different enviornments. Europeans were always more militarily skilled in both defense and offense than the Chinese.
Also, mountains.
You sound like a typical PRC chink, giving excuses like "oh our enemies were more difficult" to change the fact that China was mediocre.
>>467420
The Xiognu and all of the nomad type barbarians are now stationed since 200 BC from Russia to Hungary and are doing large scale raids to all of europe for more then thousand years. Lets see how europeans will handle that.
>>467420
>You sound like a typical PRC chink, giving excuses like "oh our enemies were more difficult" to change the fact that China was mediocre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tunmen
>>467433
>fantasy situations
You are getting desperate.
>Lets see how europeans will handle that.
Better than the Chinese
If you weren't so delusional and biased towards your mediocre identity you'd know that Europe already dealt with steppe nomads.
>>467401
When was the last time China employed chariots in war?
>>467379
>This tremendous asshurt
First of all: sorry I misread your shit.
> "MUH CROSSBOWS" greco-roman civilizations had them AND invented repeating crossbows earlier than Chinks.
Easy to misread that
Second: its because the Gastraphetes was built by the Greeks as an ARTILLERY PIECE when it was made. You know what else only required one man to use? A scorpion. Another artillery piece.
I dont think you understand how Greeks viewed missile warfare: they saw missile troops as a mere skirmisher force. A screen to block off or pester enemy troops. Not a main battle weapon in its right as plenty of Asians from the Eurasian Steppes to Japan saw it. To this end they put anyone who used a ranged weapon in one formation, the "Psiloi." These cunts weren't deployed in ordered rows and collumns: they ran ahead of the phalanx, up to the faces of enemy phalanxes and chuck arrows, slings, and javelins at them, and then running back to their own lines before the enemy's own psiloi fucks them up or the hoplites run them down.
There's multiple explanations for this retarded way the greeks used missile weapons.
1) Hoplites were some of the most heavily armored troops in their time and thus missiles either have to be up close to be able to make a dent on them.
2) Rocky/Hilly Greece isnt conducive for missile warfare as cunts can just hide behind some rock
3) Greeks saw missile warfare as cowardly.
Meaning: the Psiloi are very light infantry units. Men bearing Gastraphetes weren't MEANT to be in the Psiloi. The weapon they have was heavy and unsuitable for light infantry roles. They were classed as Katapeltes (artillery).
In fact: they weren't meant to be in field battles at all. They were siege weapons desu. and thus aren't true crossbows. Hence what I said
>The only thing that ever came close was the Gastraphetes
Again, far cry from the lighter weapons that the Chinese were using.
>>467446
>one battle = entire military
>portugal = all of Europe
Like i said, you are a typical PRC chink denying the fact that China was mediocre
>>458496
This desu. White people are evil
>>467413
>It's pretty well understood that late imperial armies had crossbows, and of varying types types, from siege artillery and repeating weapons,
>to "regular" crossbows.
You mean this poorly recorded thing that came up during the early medieval ages and only saw extensive use by the time of the Frankish Empire?
>Chinese forces simply tended to be less protected than (civlized) western ones, and a lack of protection helps missile weapons disproportionately.
Not really, the Han soldier had the same armor coverage & material as the Roman one. Torso's wrapped in steel armor. The age of the Pre-Imperial/Qin-Era leather lamellar soldiery was pretty much over.
>>467463
>Is that why your armies fell to the enemies of the chinese - mongols?
Where did I say they didn't?
Difference is that they didn't not rule much. While China was changed entirely due to steppe rulers.
Also you didn't address >>467455
How does one battle represent entire military, and in this case how does one battle with the Portuguese represent all of Europe?
>>467447
dealt with steppe nomads.
Only some fractions of them, who came out of their homeland hundreds of years ago.
Ghengis Khan assembled 90k cavalry for the invasion of Jin, prior to all invasion to other countries.
>>467480
>Han soldier had the same armor coverage & material as the Roman one
no
>>467481
>While China was changed entirely due to steppe rulers.
China was right next to the power of the horse nomads which was Mongolia & Co, you guys were atleast 5000 km away from them, you faced merely fractions of their full power.
>>467497
Yes? Here's a regular chump.
>>467484
>dealt with steppe nomads.
?
Doesn't change the fact that China was forever changed by steppe rulers.
Steppe nomads could not expand beyond Eastern/Middle Europe partly due to their severely inferior warfare capability with mountains, which the Europeans would have destroyed them in.
>>467476
Why not all people?
Also internet highly stimulate people do steps in evil side, because they do not receive rebuff after swearing
>>467505
even if that was your average infantryman, which it isn't, you must know that that's not the same level of protection given to a roman soldier
>>467506
>Steppe nomads could not expand beyond Eastern/Middle Europe partly due to their severely inferior warfare capability with mountains, which the Europeans would have destroyed them in.
Oh really?
>>467497
>>467505
And here's an Imperial Guardsman, who had the monopoly of the color red.
>>467504
Even with their full power they would have failed as they would have been destroyed in among mountains, which is part of the reason why China was a more delicious target.
>China was right next to the power of the horse nomads which was Mongolia & Co
Manchu changed China
>>467522
>Mountains
>In 899, these Magyars defeated Berengar's army in the Battle of Brenta River and invaded the northern regions of Italy. They pillaged the countryside around Treviso, Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo and Milan
>>467515
Those are raids, not conquering and ruling which requires an army. If an army is brought, the loss of that army (which would have occured) would have crippled the civilization heavily
I don't know what you're trying to argue anymore. You keep pushing this trying to find any little vantage point, when it is clear that the Romans themselves were generally superior to the Chinese in technology and wealth
>>467513
>even if that was your average infantryman, which it isn't,
But it is? Unless we're talking of the other elements of the Han Army: the Feudal Troops of the remaining Chinese nobles, who are WERE irregularly armed.
>you must know that that's not the same level of protection given to a roman soldier
They had shields too of multiple types. Though not all of them as there were troop types like the halberdiers.
>>467528
As already said, they could not conquer and rule.
Even with now Hungary their impact is shown little in the cultural timeline of Hungary.
>>467536
>Even with now Hungary their impact is shown little in the cultural timeline of Hungary.
Yeah, as if there wasn't no German dynasty of some sort obsessed with Westernizing the shit out of Hungary.
Also funny you say that, elements of the Hungarian Far Right is this weird bunch promoting both Aryanism AND Turanism. They weirdly attend the Kurultai of the Turkic Nations despite being descended from Ugrics.
>>467536
>As already said, they could not conquer and rule.
Limited numbers, the Mongols conquered China with hundreds of thousands troops as opposed to those 20k magyars which already troubled Europe, if the Xiognu and the other nomads were right next to Europe then you would be conquered also.
>>467532
>But it is?
No, it isn't. Your average Han soldier was a conscript. A peasant. Like pic related. Armor was almost exclusively for nobles.
>They had shields too of multiple types. Though not all of them as there were troop types like the halberdiers.
Wonderful. Look at the body coverage on your guy and look at a Roman soldier. The Roman has an advantage.
>>467275
Read it again dumbass
>>467557
> if the Xiognu and the other nomads were right next to Europe then you would be conquered also.
Again, sending large armies through mountainous regions is unwise and is partly the reason why Hungarians couldn't do much besides raiding
>>467551
Well those Germans should have been conquered and ruled by those Magyars, but they didn't.
The difference with all these examples is that conquering and ruling a large country such as China is nothing compared to conquering and ruling a small, irrelevant East European nation and then raiding some European settlements
>>467536
>Even with now Hungary their impact is shown little in the cultural timeline of Hungary.
>The name Magyar
>Hungarian Nationalists claiming people like Attila the Hun.
>Call their summer retreats in the countryside "Yurtas."
>Family Name first before given name.
>Almost anything cultural the Hungarians do involve steppe imagery like furry hats, horse archery, and the like despite the fact that Medieval Hungary also looked like a Western European Kingdom.
>>467580
>Again, sending large armies through mountainous regions is unwise.
The Mongols crossed the carpathian mountains during the first invasion and that with more then 20k troops.
>>467350
>All younger than the Chinese Crossbow.
Actually the crossbow appeared in both China and Greece around the same time period but developed independently of one another.
>>467505
>contemporary depictions
Go find actual real life examples
>>467581
>"muh heritage" far right bydlo
>relevant
>representative of Hungarian culture in any way
The funny thing is those bydlo have nothing to do with Magyars
>>467586
Okay, what the fuck is your point anymore?
Crossed? That's it?
It depends on how powerful the defender is, and in the case of Europe they were powerful enough to take advantage of retard armies on horses having a stroll through mountains.
>>467618
>Europe they were powerful enough to take advantage of retard armies on horses having a stroll through mountains.
Why didn't they do it in the initial invasion then?
Oh they were retards themselves!
>>467568
>No, it isn't. Your average Han soldier was a conscript. A peasant. Like pic related. Armor was almost exclusively for nobles.
Depends on the era. This is correct by the time of the Eastern Han, but during the Western Han the empire fielded up to 700,000 professional soldiers at its peak alongside its conscript and peasant troops. Han officials noted their soldiers' armor was significantly superior to that of the Xiongnu's leather armor. This doesn't indicate (As the other anon argues) that it matches a Roman Legionnaires, but it certainly goes against your idea that the Han were all poorly armed and armored peasants, or that they were poorly trained for their job.
>>467630
Lots of factors, mainly they were already dealing with Muslims and Vikings. They were total retards for focusing more of their attention to Vikings and Muslims than sudden Hungarians
China on the other hand had full attention towards their steppe nomads.
>>467568
>No, it isn't. Your average Han soldier was a conscript.
>Conscript.
There wasn't even such a thing as an "Average Han Soldier." Given the varied schemes of raising an army in Han China
1) Feudal Household Troops.
2) The State Army.
3) Private military organizations.
4) Provincial armies: who had the conscripts.
All of whom are invariably armed -though the state ones had a more standardized approach. Also this "peasant militia" meme should end. Han troops were either volunteers, liege men, or term conscripts: who were trained and outfitted and not just plucked from their villages with their pitchforks.
>Armor was almost exclusively for nobles.
Nope.jpg. Also funny you posted that guy. He's from the Yanling Cave Tomb of Emperor Jing of Han. Which depicted a funeral procession (unlike the Qin Dynasty Tomb: Terracotta cunts were in military formation). Also which, you know, had armored infantrymen as well. Nobles, meanwhile, were mostly cavalrymen...and few in number as the Han Dynasty is also known for the decline of nobility in China. Cunt must probably be an auxiliary. Sides, in every army, including the Roman one, only guys expected in the cut and thrust of the battle line had armor/more armor, while auxiliaries tended to be lighter/no armor at all.
>>467597
>Actually the crossbow appeared in both China and Greece around the same time period but developed independently of one another.
The physics and mechanism: sure, but was talking of the crossbow as a personal weapon m8 not an artillery piece.
>>458095
>Was the Han dynasty as advanced as ancient Rome?
Go read Needham.
>>467529
>Those are raids, not conquering and ruling which requires an army.
Tell that to the Maygars and Bulgars
>>467662
>>467350
>Greeks used crossbows as siege weapons first
>Chinese used crossbows as personal weapons first
>Greeks used slings as personal weapons first
>Chinese used slings as siege weapons first.
Uncanny.
>>462043
>Archaeological findings already show that there are far more iron offices than recorded as well as the multiple furnaces.(debunking Needham/Wagner's estimates)
I'm actually interested in this, are there any sources for this?
>>467614
>>contemporary depictions
It's a reconstruction made from unearthed artifacts you /pol/tard
>CROSSBOWS vs. PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS: the thread
Both are memes 2bh family. Crossbows aren't some magic wonder weapon and Rome wasn't alone in maintaining professional standing armies.
>>467645
>Adding on to the unarmored,untrained peasants hordes meme.
Universal conscription would mean even peasants would have some sort of military experience/training.(Western Han)
The Eastern Han had far more mercenaries/foreign auxiliaries.
The Juyuan slips show that Han frontier conscripts were paid a decent wage.
One look at the Donghai military inventory debunks the "unarmored" portion.
>>467687
im guessing thats a picture of the chines "sling siege weapon"
that looks more like a catapult/onager honestly
or does it actually spin?
>>467745
No. That's a latter model. The Han Dynasty one is a fixed weapon that looks like this.
The disadvantage if this set up is the crew size.
The advantage of this set up is the fact that you can throw heavier missiles than the ones thrown by torsion or oversized crossbow weapons by just adding more guys on the ropes.
>>467712
>expecting /pol/tards not to get mad at people suggesting a non-white nation was equal to Rome
>>467785
so what you just have a bunch of guys pull the ropes?
also slings use the kinetic energy of the spinning motion
imo if its not spinning its not sling related
>>467453
>MUH GREEKS!
And the Romans merrily employed scorpion batteries in field battles given the opportunity.
>>467834
>No helmet
Baffling thing about East Asian armies really: Helmets seem to be reserved for officers and higher ups.
Grunts get either a turban or a hat. Was true for Japan, China, and Korea.
>>467802
>also slings use the kinetic energy of the spinning motion
>imo if its not spinning its not sling related
...slings refer to the pouch that holds the bullet that is slung by a rope. If it has a sling...its a sling.
Ever heard of staff slings?
>>467793
>Expecting china to feed an army of 700k
Guess thats why they eat everything
>>467854
The oddest part is that they're also often missile-centric.
People are shooting at you and you have a shield-
Better leave the head exposed and get body armor.
>>467854
Didn't Japanese soldiers have helmets?
>>467701
>/pol/tard
Not even one faggot, nice butthurt chink faggot
Post the sources then queer, if I wanted to show the armor of an average soldier I'll post historical depictions, not reconstructions.
>>467910
These things? Jingasa were made of leather & straw m8. There was also a turtle-shell shaped metal one, but it seems to be for officers.
East Asians seem to be more worried about sunstroke than getting bonked in the head. Though the Chinese turban would at least be effective as a protective.
>>467910
Yes, but they're... not exactly impressive.
>>467937
Forgot my pic.
It looks like this and seems to be a 1400's piece of Nip Kit.
>>458095
Administratively they were, maybe not in terms of gross technology, like roads and architecture, but more advanced intellectually
>nationalized the salt industry in 117 BC
>>467854
>slings refer to the pouch that holds the bullet
i guess that is true
but in that case a onager is also a sling
>>467854
also you still use a spinning motion on the staff sling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjiAoA26M4Q
without the spinning motion prior to the "flick" (forward motion) you lose like half the power
>>467948
It has a sling yeah.
Furthermore: I don't think the spoon cup catapult existed at all in a military capacity. Its probably a funny meme take on catapults which mostly had sling releases.
You can't adjust the aim of a spoon. With a sling at least you can adjust the release of the projectile with a hook that releases the loose end.
>>467960
Interdasting.
>>467910
>>467971
If these are based on the famous Haniwa Clay Scultpures then these are already nobles & professional fighters m8. The average Yamato soldier only had his Leia Locks to defend his head.
Pic related: a bit earlier than the Kofun, but illustrates my point.
>>467966
you will note that when he uses the apache style he uses alot more force in the throw then when he spins yet he will still achive the same distance and speed
>>459741
Overkill and "fill your pocket and run" is well supported by historical texts. Sometimes the emperors encouraged the practice, like Justinian. Not that the Han weren't corrupt either. However, lands were not held on a hereditary basis. After two or three generations, the land would either be subdivided or awarded to those who had attained merit. This contrasts very favorably to the rise of tax exempt landowners, who would sow the seeds for the dark age transition to feudalism.
>>467983
I'm no expert on Kofun period armor,did Kofun era Japanese polities have the manpower or centralization for mass conscription?
Osprey's depictions of East Asian civilizations tend to be mediocre at best or downright horrific.(Though the Japanese seem to be the exception)
