Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 19th, 2018, 11:58 AM   #31

Spike117's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: United States
Posts: 301

I love discussing tactics, equipment, strategy, organization, etc. of armies and comparing them.

The truth is, we'll never know the answer. It's too arbitrary and hypothetical, and can vary vastly depending on how its set up. Two field armies being prodded at each other in the middle of an endless grassy plain is far different than two nations going to war across real geopolitical boundaries with all the economic and other such factors.

But, despite this, these still warrant discussion to me because they bring out learning. Off of another post which was pretty much a copy of this, Scribe sent me a lot of information about Han Chinese warfare and tactics and such. This was great because I knew a considerable amount about Roman warfare but nothing about Han. Therefore, I wasn't going to argue either way because I don't know enough about one side.

However, it's clear to me that some people treat this as a 'my favorite hero can beat yours' discussion. They show little interest in learning about the other nation's warfare which they so glaringly know so sparsely about. Even worse, they seem to have an inherent lack of understanding even for the nation they favor.
Spike117 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 19th, 2018, 12:07 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 12,051

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike117 View Post
I love discussing tactics, equipment, strategy, organization, etc. of armies and comparing them.

The truth is, we'll never know the answer. It's too arbitrary and hypothetical, and can vary vastly depending on how its set up. Two field armies being prodded at each other in the middle of an endless grassy plain is far different than two nations going to war across real geopolitical boundaries with all the economic and other such factors.

But, despite this, these still warrant discussion to me because they bring out learning. Off of another post which was pretty much a copy of this, Scribe sent me a lot of information about Han Chinese warfare and tactics and such. This was great because I knew a considerable amount about Roman warfare but nothing about Han. Therefore, I wasn't going to argue either way because I don't know enough about one side.

However, it's clear to me that some people treat this as a 'my favorite hero can beat yours' discussion. They show little interest in learning about the other nation's warfare which they so glaringly know so sparsely about. Even worse, they seem to have an inherent lack of understanding even for the nation they favor.
Quite often one finds that a battle is actually decided before its even fought..

One important aspect as you point out is where this theoritical battle between Roman/Han armies would occur ? Others include: supply, state of the armies, knowledge of the opponent tactics and strategy, training and equipment of the armies, army strength and force mix (how much cavarly, archers etc..), generalship, weather, terrain, potential reinforcement etc... etc..
tomar is offline  
Old July 19th, 2018, 09:00 PM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,003

Quote:
Originally Posted by UlpiusTraianus View Post
Greeks defeated and humiliated persians that used no fix structures and so on.

And this is part of the topic. Roman Empire fought versus a greater range of type of enemies because, apart fightingh versus formation without fixed structures, they defeated also the Greek Phalanxes.

No, the Greeks used the Phalanx to beat the Persians, not any other formation. If you are not going to read the source and understand its terminologies (your response shows to me you have no idea what the author even meant by fixed structure), quit wasting my time in these low quality responses.

Last edited by heavenlykaghan; July 19th, 2018 at 09:04 PM.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Old July 19th, 2018, 09:04 PM   #34

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,636
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike117 View Post
But, despite this, these still warrant discussion to me because they bring out learning. Off of another post which was pretty much a copy of this, Scribe sent me a lot of information about Han Chinese warfare and tactics and such. This was great because I knew a considerable amount about Roman warfare but nothing about Han. Therefore, I wasn't going to argue either way because I don't know enough about one side.

However, it's clear to me that some people treat this as a 'my favorite hero can beat yours' discussion. They show little interest in learning about the other nation's warfare which they so glaringly know so sparsely about. Even worse, they seem to have an inherent lack of understanding even for the nation they favor.

I'm glad you liked that. I also just shared a lot from another ancient Chinese book called "Six Secret Teachings" here: Logistics and structures of ancient armies??

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; July 19th, 2018 at 09:18 PM.
HackneyedScribe is offline  
Old July 20th, 2018, 01:09 AM   #35
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2018
From: UK
Posts: 137

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike117 View Post
I love discussing tactics, equipment, strategy, organization, etc. of armies and comparing them.

The truth is, we'll never know the answer. It's too arbitrary and hypothetical, and can vary vastly depending on how its set up. Two field armies being prodded at each other in the middle of an endless grassy plain is far different than two nations going to war across real geopolitical boundaries with all the economic and other such factors.

But, despite this, these still warrant discussion to me because they bring out learning. Off of another post which was pretty much a copy of this, Scribe sent me a lot of information about Han Chinese warfare and tactics and such. This was great because I knew a considerable amount about Roman warfare but nothing about Han. Therefore, I wasn't going to argue either way because I don't know enough about one side.

However, it's clear to me that some people treat this as a 'my favorite hero can beat yours' discussion. They show little interest in learning about the other nation's warfare which they so glaringly know so sparsely about. Even worse, they seem to have an inherent lack of understanding even for the nation they favor.

Quoted for thruth
Olleus is online now  
Old July 25th, 2018, 10:24 AM   #36
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2018
From: France
Posts: 726

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
No, the Greeks used the Phalanx to beat the Persians, not any other formation. If you are not going to read the source and understand its terminologies (your response shows to me you have no idea what the author even meant by fixed structure), quit wasting my time in these low quality responses.
My reply was:
Greeks defeated and humiliated persians that used no fix structures and so on.

And this is part of the topic. Roman Empire fought versus a greater range of type of enemies because, apart fightingh versus formation without fixed structures, they defeated also the Greek Phalanxes.


It is impossible to reply to you because your reply is not relevant.
UlpiusTraianus is offline  
Old July 25th, 2018, 11:58 AM   #37

Spike117's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: United States
Posts: 301

Quote:
Originally Posted by UlpiusTraianus View Post
My reply was:
Greeks defeated and humiliated persians that used no fix structures and so on.

And this is part of the topic. Roman Empire fought versus a greater range of type of enemies because, apart fightingh versus formation without fixed structures, they defeated also the Greek Phalanxes.


It is impossible to reply to you because your reply is not relevant.
Coming as a Romanophile myself, I feel like I must step in.

You've done nothing but repeat the same, simplistic, flawed, unbased point that the Romans faced more variety and therefore are automatically superior. This does not only a great disservice to the Han whose on military history you refuse to properly research but also to the Romans themselves as you've made their own great military history extremely shallow.

For one, you don't even know that the Romans fought more styles than the Han because its evident you don't know enough about the Han to say as much. As far as I remember, you've brought up the Xiongnu for the Han and severely underestimated them. Now, I'm still learning about Han China, but I even I know that's really playing them down.

Meanwhile, for the Romans, as I remember, you've brought up Carthage, the Greeks, Parthia, and European barbarians. For one, that's not even the full breadth of variety Rome faced, and secondly you've simplified those respective groups anyway.

You seem especially hung up on beating the phalanx (hoplite and sarissa variants). What about the phalanx makes it such a highpoint in military tactics? They are basically specialized and improved versions of formations anybody with a spear or pike did.

Beating the phalanx was certainly an achievement, but it by no means assures tactical supremacy.

If I remember correctly, there was even evidence the Han might've had contact with phalanxes or at least known of them back on one of the threads. But even if they didn't, a military as large and developed as their's would've easily recognized its strengths and weaknesses.

What makes the Roman triumph so great over the phalanx is that it shook the military order of the time. Rome at those points was actually still pretty small and underdeveloped. When it ditched the hoplite variant, it was still fighting the Samnites! When it overcame the pike variant, it was still using the hastati/principe/triarii setup!

A Roman legion of the Principate, upon encountering a phalanx, would have been able to analyze it and deal with it properly even without the prior knowledge that they even faced it in their history. It's something that any militarized society should be able to do.

So, a Han army most likely would be able to overcome a phalanx even without ever facing it.

Now, what you ignore is that many Han formations Romans have never seen. I was just as bewildered as to their specifics as you, so I actually contacted Scribe for more information and he sent me tons of documents describing such matters. I'm still not done reading through it but its actually quite interesting and worth it to read through. Instead, you went ahead and disparaged them (one of them you mockingly called "squawking goose" I believe) without caring to learn about them.

I'm not saying their superior or inferior. I'm just saying that you can't write them off as goofy, useless formations without even caring to understand them.

And that's ultimately what I'm getting at. You are refusing to put truth ahead of pride and actually learn about the Han military and come to understand how it operated and fought. Furthermore you refuse to study the Romans who you so love in-depth which just makes them look even more overrated then people already think and doesn't give them due credit either.

I am not saying who would win or who was better or anything of the sort. I would like to say Rome simply because I love Rome and I would at least think that it would be a close contest whether it was a continent-wide war or a simple field battle. But I won't put my bias ahead of learning, and I am both eager and open to learning about the Han military. I advise you to do the same. I'm sure you can admit that you've been stubborn and really do wish to objectively learn about history and I'm sure everyone here is willing to help you with that because that's what these discussions are for and what the people on Historum generally do.
Spike117 is offline  
Old July 25th, 2018, 11:59 AM   #38

Spike117's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: United States
Posts: 301

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
I'm glad you liked that. I also just shared a lot from another ancient Chinese book called "Six Secret Teachings" here: Logistics and structures of ancient armies??
Thank you for this as well. The more the merrier!
Spike117 is offline  
Old July 25th, 2018, 08:14 PM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,003

Quote:
Originally Posted by UlpiusTraianus View Post
My reply was:
Greeks defeated and humiliated persians that used no fix structures and so on.

And this is part of the topic. Roman Empire fought versus a greater range of type of enemies because, apart fightingh versus formation without fixed structures, they defeated also the Greek Phalanxes.


It is impossible to reply to you because your reply is not relevant.

You clearly don't even understand what my reply is or what the source meant by the term fix structure. So I'm not going to waste my time with you unless you do.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
ancient, chinese, formations, grecoroman, phalanx, superior, tactics, true



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why the Roman legion was superior to the Macedonian phalanx cerberusd War and Military History 63 April 26th, 2018 08:20 AM
were ancient Chinese philsophers superior Westerners of the same period? notgivenaway General History 11 June 4th, 2016 05:39 AM
Chinese historiography as compared to Greco-Roman historiography Bhrigu Asian History 17 March 21st, 2016 02:03 PM
Ancient Chinese military tactics Mrbsct Asian History 21 October 6th, 2013 05:38 PM
Ancient Greco Roman world was not the real ancestor of European civilization Fvar European History 7 May 2nd, 2012 11:26 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.