Comparing sizes of the armies of the medieval East and West

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
Tone it down a notch , will you
Asking you to read what you disagreed with is something that needs "toning down"? And as shown below in your very post you commit the same mistake once again. You keep accusing others of not having sources despite them having already provided them.

You're making extremely dubious claims without providing clear explanations or data......
I said the road is 20 meters wide. What types of explanation or data is required? How is that claim dubious?

Where is the map of this road ? Why is not paved, at least in sections ?... like any decent roman road or for that matter chinese road
Maps can be found in the links provided before. Please read. Anyway, if I provide a map will that make you believe about the width of the Qin Zhi Dao? No? Then why bother asking?

I don't know why you bring paving into it. The point is wide roads facilitate travel of large armies. Paving affects maintenance, not how wide the road is. Please stop throwing out distractions from the point.

And this claims is highly controversial

If the roads being used were built primarily for trade and were thus single-file in each direction, the army would be limited to a column of twos and would stretch 12,000 m (7.4 miles), adding 3 to 5 hours to the time required for the army to assemble at the end of the march,

Firstly roads built for trade are not necessarily single file in each direction... Secondly the military are not, as this author seems to imply, idiots... They do not have to walk SOLELY on a road.....
If the claim is highly controversial, then you are saying there are authors who disagree and do NOT think wide roads facilitate the travel of large armies. Please provide such authors who disagree and their relevant quotes. All I see is you taking the word of my source way too literally. The point is about wide roads facilitating the travel of large armies. If armies don't walk on a road as you say, ie having a fair portion of the columns walk outside of the road, then please explain how that facilitates travel of large armies. Sounds like it just defeats the point of the question.

If you're gonna claim that the chinese had 20 meter wide roads (vs a maximum of 12 for the romans) and in places up to 60, you'd better provide some serious and solid data....Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...... It should not be so hard... Such a road should have left archaelogical evidence AND in a highly organzied society such as the Chinese one, lots of records....
Why do you ignore the evidence I provided? Stop asking for sourcing that I already provided. You need to improve your reading. I copy/paste what was given:

Twitchett and Loewe (1986, 101) dispute the possibility of imperial roads this wide, but their conjecture must now be amended in light of excavated roads. In Shaanxi, remnants of the Qin-Han road seem to be 45m wide and more. In several places, the road seems to be 50-60m, as reported by Wang Zijin (1994a, 33). However, Wang, suspects, probably correctly, that "this distinction between imperial and nonimperial lanes probably petered out some distance from the capital." -Highways, Byways, and Road Systems in the Pre-Modern World, pg 57

Wang Zijin (王子今) is a professor in Qin/Han histories in ZhongGuoRenMinDaXueXueYuan.

The "Straight Road" did not utilize the old roads of the Warring States Period; it was built from nothing and connected the north and south of the country. The relics of the "Straight Road" can still be identified today in some counties of Shaanxi Province, such as Chunhua, Xunyi, Huangling, and Ganquan. Several remnants of the "Strait Road" which have been discovered are 50-60 m wide.-An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture by Qizhi Zhang, pg 85

QiZhiZhang was the president of Norwest University and focuses on Chinese History and Culture.


现已发现的秦直道遗迹最宽处 50 余米,转弯处最大半径近 50 — 60 米,一般为 30 米至 40 米。路基坚实,夯打坚硬。-亲物质文化史,‎呼林贵 pg 213
Translation: As of today the parts of the Qin Zhi Dao which were discovered measures over 50 meters at its widest, while at the turning points it is close to 50-60 meters. Average width is 30-40 meters. The roadbed is solid due to the hard pounding.

HuLinGUi is an academic researcher of history in Shaanxi Archaeology Research Center.


Once again you FAIL to READ. Seriously. Stop asking for sourcing that were already provided. If you have data about the Qin Zhi Dao being some other width, then please provide your own source. If you disagree with the author, then provide your own countesources rather than your opinion. If the claim about wide roads is "highly controversial", then why don't you provide sources that say other wise? If it is highly controversial, then that means there are authors that say otherwise, yet all I see is your personal opinion again and again.
 
Last edited:

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
your claims are vague. perhaps if you want to be understood you should be clearer about what you are saying.
I said the Qin Zhi Dao has a width of 20 meters. What is so vague about that? Explain.

one road is hardy overly significant in military strategic terms. yes armies can rush from north to south helps with strategic movement of reserves but not much beyond that.
I have repeatedly said the Qin Zhi Dao was not the only road of such width. You need to compare the ratio of wide roads over the ratio of roads that were excavated.

your sources are all variations of 'parts of..' as such do not explain fully. what, is the minimum width,not the maximum or the average. how wide are ALL the bridges. do they discuss it at length or only the fragments here?

the length of the march column is an important factor in how big an army can get but not the only one.
I expected something like this to happen. You keep changing goalposts, which was why I told you to make a list of requirements and don't change those requirements after the sources are provided. You said you only needed 2-3 historians. I provided. Now you change your goalpost. I remind you that these were the requirements you listed, no more: "2-3 references by reputable historians the give some detail about who wide, how extensive a network." If you wanted more requirements then you should have provided them before I gave my source. If you want average width then one of my sources said:

现已发现的秦直道遗迹最宽处 50 余米,转弯处最大半径近 50 — 60 米,一般为 30 米至 40 米。路基坚实,夯打坚硬。-亲物质文化史,‎呼林贵 pg 213
Translation: As of today the parts of the Qin Zhi Dao which were discovered measures over 50 meters at its widest, while at the turning points it is close to 50-60 meters. Average width is 30-40 meters. The roadbed is solid due to the hard pounding.

Now you change goal posts. You ask for the width of "ALL bridges"(seriously?) and minimum width of Qin Zhi Dao, as if that somehow negates what I said. These requirements are new and not in the requirements that you had given me. I expect you to keep your word and not change your requirements whenever your requirements are met. You are breaking your word. If you disagree with anything that was a part of my sources, then why don't you provide your own source? Where is your sourcing to back up your incredulity? Considering your changing of goalposts, the only thing that seems to be fueling your skepticism is your unwillingness to admit being wrong. If you don't believe the Qin Zhi Dao have an average width of 20 meters or more, then go ahead and find better sourcing which says otherwise. I'm not stopping you, get the source by all means, I'm waiting.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2007
240
Do you mean Vietnam & Korea could mobilise 200k men?

This is simply impossible, given their population.
How could you say this without knowing the population of Vietnam or Korea in medieval times? The population figure for Vietnam during the Ly and Tran dynasty remained obscure, but the Red river delta since the Han's time was already more densely populated than Guangdong and Guangxi. This was understandable since it was a region very suitable for paddy fields.

The Ly and Tran dynasty also employed conscription in times of need. While universal conscription was not the major method of recruiting during the contemporary Song dynasty, their Vietnamese counterpart still maintained the old method, thus men who were eligible for military service were drafted in times of need. The central authority kept population records in order to do this.

The army all recruited during the Mongol invasion of 1285 was said to be 200,000 men, this was in times of emergency.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,812
He said 30-40 meters, not 60. Stop distorting other people's post and pretend to act like a retard.
Before insulting your fellow posters you could at least check previous posts

this is an extract

Twitchett and Loewe (1986, 101) dispute the possibility of imperial roads this wide, but their conjecture must now be amended in light of excavated roads. In Shaanxi, remnants of the Qin-Han road seem to be 45m wide and more. In several places, the road seems to be 50-60m, as reported by Wang Zijin (1994a, 33)
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
Why not bold in red the part which said "in several places"? This does not contradict my claim that the road at its widest section is 60 meters. My other source said that the average width was closer to 30 meters, which is greater than my claim of 20 meters. Why didn't you bold in red that part? You are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Or you know that most of the road is vastly less than 60 meters but you call it a 60 meter wide road anyways, even though that only applies to the widest turning sections.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,812
Why not bold in red the part which said "in several places"? This does not contradict my claim that the road at its widest section is 60 meters. My other source said that the average width was closer to 30 meters, which is greater than my claim of 20 meters. Why didn't you bold in red that part? You are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Or you know that most of the road is vastly less than 60 meters but you call it a 60 meter wide road anyways, even though that only applies to the widest turning sections.
I am not interested in this nitpicking contest of yours....If you cant stand criticism and questions dont post here. I dont care either way what width the road is, however You made a claim which is extraordinary.....So

Where is the map of this road ?

Where is the archeological evidence ?

Where are the chinese records pertaining to this road, its building , its use etc... ?

All of this should be easy to find for such a mammoth road.....We certainly have no problem with those for Roman roads of smaller width

If this cannot be provided then people will remain dubious about such a wide road because the elements you have provided so far are not sufficient. Whether you like it or not
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
I am not interested in this nitpicking contest of yours....If you cant stand criticism and questions dont post here. I dont care either way what width the road is, however You made a claim which is extraordinary.....So

Where is the map of this road ?

Where is the archeological evidence ?

Where are the chinese records pertaining to this road, its building , its use etc... ?

All of this should be easy to find for such a mammoth road.....We certainly have no problem with those for Roman roads of smaller width

If this cannot be provided then people will remain dubious about such a wide road because the elements you have provided so far are not sufficient. Whether you like it or not
What you're asking for had already been provided, repeatedly. I also already told you that they have been provided, repeatedly. You even quoted one of them. Why don't you read back? Maps are shown in the link provided in post 58 as I've told you before. I show you the picture of the archaeological evidence but apparently you don't think it's good enough. So what is archaeological evidence in your definition? Do you expect me to bring the archaeology physically to your room? First you say I have no sources, when I provide sources in post 66, 68, 71 and 72, you say I'm participating in a "nitpicking contest". Yet you either ignore the sources provided while still complaining about "no sources", or try to oppose said sources using nothing but your opinion. So why don't you tell me SPECIFIC reasons WHY the sources I've provided are not good enough instead of just ignoring them or with vague statements such as "it's highly controversial" without pointing out any relevant authors who contradict it? Why don't you give a list of your specific requirements which points out what type of sources is good enough for you?

So as for your questions:

Where is the map of this road ?
If I show you a map of the road, are you going to dismiss/ignore it? If pictures aren't good enough, perhaps you should provide me with your address so I can mail a physical map of the road to your home address? If I show you a map of the road, will that convince you the road exists?

Where is the archeological evidence ?
If I show you the archaeological evidence, are you going to dismiss/ignore it? If pictures aren't good enough, perhaps you should provide me with your address so I can carry a physical part of the road to your doorstep? If I show you a archaeological evidence of the road, will that convince you the road exists?

Where are the chinese records pertaining to this road, its building , its use etc... ?
If I show you the Chinese records pertaining to this road, are you going to convinced that the road exists?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
955
EARTH
Before insulting your fellow posters you could at least check previous posts

this is an extract

Twitchett and Loewe (1986, 101) dispute the possibility of imperial roads this wide, but their conjecture must now be amended in light of excavated roads. In Shaanxi, remnants of the Qin-Han road seem to be 45m wide and more. In several places, the road seems to be 50-60m, as reported by Wang Zijin (1994a, 33)
You are having a problem with reading comprehension.

It clear states "In several places" of the Qin-Hand road are 50-60m", and your rebuttal is a modern picture showing a large continuous road. Not only is that irrelevant, it's misconstruing both Hackneyedscribe's statement and quotes.

He has already stated that the road is only that wide in the largest turning section. Don't make this sound like he's being unreasonable when you fail to read other people's posts.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
If I show you a map of the road, will that convince you the road exists?
If I show you a archaeological evidence of the road, will that convince you the road exists?
If you can, we would all be really interested in seeing both the maps and the archaeological evidence for the road, sir.