A Comparison of Qin era soldiers with other ancient armies

[Zor]

This, as you all know is the Terracotta Army of Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi, the Monarch who forged from seven warring eastern Eurasian kingdoms China. A deed that was done with soldiers to which Qin based his army off of. Clad in lacquered armor, led by chariot riding officers and armed with crossbow, sword and halberd.

Now, i was wondering, how effective would such a fighting force be against other forces from around the world at the time, could a force of Hoplites hold their ground against such an army? Could they best the proto-legions of Rome, the marauding hordes of the Gauls and the forces of Carthage? Could they stand up to the forces of latter nations such as Germanian Barbarians or the Marian Legions of Imperial Rome?

Zor

[Thanas]

No shields? Instant death on a european battlefield if you don't have a phalanx formation. Also, lacquered armour is not as resistant as chainmail. The gauls are also not marauding hordes, so don't characterize them as such.

What are their tactics, logistics and discipline?

What is the range and penetrating power of the crossbow?

How many of them are there?

[ray245]

Well, for one, there are still some pits that has yet to be excavated, such as pit number 4 where it is speculated to contain the main body of the Terracotta army.

Another thing I'm pretty sure is the Qin army do have shields, but I'm not sure if those excavated shields were found together with the Terracotta army or not.

Anyway, someone managed to translate a Chinese article on the Qin army and hopefully will provide you with some of the details you seek.

http://www.cctv.com/science/special/C11 ... 2163.shtml


Here's the translation.

　　1974年，在秦始皇兵马俑坑中发现了大量的兵器，对这些兵器的研究让人们逐渐看到了秦军鲜为人知的一面，司马迁未曾记录的那一面。
In 1974, there's a discovery of a huge amount of weapons in the terracotta army pits of Qin Shihuang. Many military researchers thus began to see the side of the Qin army known to few people, the side that was not recorded by Sima Qian.

　　在河南省的西平县，考古学家们发现了大量古人炼铁的遗迹。两千多年前，这一带是韩国的冶铁中心，铁器的生产在当时已经有一定规模。
At Xi Ping district in Henan, archaeologists discovered large amount of evidences and traces indicating the manufacture of Iron. This place would be the iron foundries of the state of Han 2000 years ago. The manufacture of iron at that time has reached a certain magnitude and scale.

　　在河北易县出土的这把燕国铁剑，锋刃部分已经达到了今天高炭钢的硬度！春秋战国的几百年间， 青铜正在慢慢退出历史，铁，正在开启一个新的时代。
In the district of Yi at Hebei was discovered an iron sword of Yan. The blade has the hardness of modern high carbon steel! In the few centuries in Spring and Autumn and Warring States, bronze is gradually moving out of history. Iron is starting a new age.

　　令人费解的是，处于同一时期的秦人，似乎没有跟上时代。兵马俑坑中出土的四万件兵器，几乎全由青铜铸成。难道用武力统一了中国的秦军是一支装备落后的军队吗？
However, what's confusing is that the Qin who dwelt in the same age seemed not to have caught up with the technology. The 40000 pieces of weaponry uncovered at the terracotta army pits is almost entirely made of bronze. Thus, was the state of Qin that unified China through martial prowess an army with obsolete weapons?

　　司马迁在《史记》中记录了一次著名的谋杀事件。在秦统一中国前一年，强悍的秦军正准备消灭燕国的时候，一个叫荆轲的使者带着燕国的地图来到秦国。这是一场精心策划的阴谋，献图投降是假，刺杀秦始皇是荆轲真正的目的。
Sima Qian wrote in Shiji a most famous assassination attempt. A year before unification, the powerful Qin army was preparing to conquer Yan. A emissary named Jing Ke took a map of Yan to Qin. This is a meticulously planned plot. The submission of Yan and ceding of land is a cover up for the true purpose of Jing Ke - to assassinate Qin Shihuang.

史记上这样描述： 刺客荆轲手持匕首，绕柱奔逃的秦始皇企图拔剑还击，三次拔剑而剑竟然不出。
In Shiji it was recorded that Jing Ke held the dagger and cahsed Qin Shihuang around the pillars. Qin Shihuang tried to draw his sword 3 times but failed.

　　司马迁解释说，秦始皇的配剑太长了，所以不能及时拔出来。
Sima Qian explained that his sword was too long. He could not draw it out.

　　青铜剑一般都是短剑，它无法做长的原因是因为青铜材料容易折断。春秋战国时期，最负盛名的越王勾践剑，全长不过55.6厘米。青铜剑普遍宽而短，60厘米似乎是青铜剑的极限。这种长度的配剑随手就可以抽出，秦始皇怎么可能因为剑太长而拔不出来呢？对于司马迁的这个解释，历史学家一直很困惑。
Bronze swords are typically short swords. It cannot be lengthened because bronze is easily broken. In Spring and Autumn and Warring States, the famous sword of king Gou Jian of Yue is only 55.6 cm long (1 foot 10). Bronze swords are commonly broad and short. 60 cm (2 feet) seems to be the limit. These swords should be easily drawn from its scabbard, so how is it possible that Qin Shihuang had trouble drawing his sword because it is too long? Thus, many historians are baffled by Sima Qian's explanations.

　　1974年，在兵马俑坑的黄土中，考古人员发现了一把完全不同的青铜剑。令专家吃惊的是，这把剑的长度竟然超过了91厘米，秦人能够制造如此之长的青铜剑！
In 1974, in the yellow soil of the terracotta army pits, the archaeologists discovered a totally different bronze swords. What surprised the experts is that the sword is 91 cm (3 feet) long, the Qin has the abilities to make such a long bronze sword!

　　可以推测，当年秦始皇佩带的很可能就是这种加长的青铜剑。在刺客紧逼的奔跑当中，要拔出将近一米的长剑，确实不容易。 司马迁记载：在一个宫廷医生的提醒下，秦始皇握主晃动不已的剑鞘，最终才拔出了配剑。
Thus, we can extrapolate that the sword worn by Qin Shihuang at that time would be this type of lengthened bronze sword. When being chased around by the assassin, it is thus not easy drawing a sword that's almost 1 meter long (3 feet 4 inches). Sima Qian recorded: under the reminder of a court doctor, Qin Shihuang held his quavering scabbard and finally drew his blade.

　　专家很迷惑：秦人将剑加长的目的究竟是什么呢？
Experts are confused: What is the obejctive for the Qin to lengthen their sword?

　　19世纪英国古兵器学者理查伯顿认为，在短兵器格斗中，刺要比砍更有优势，因为它更逼近对手。古罗马军团在血战中总结出一条规律：以相同的力量，刺比砍更致命，刺死砍伤。
19th century British military scientist Richard Burton thinks that in melee warfare, stabbing is more advantageous th slashing, because it is closer to the opponent. Ancient Roman armies realized a rule in their bloody wars: with the same power, stabbing is more lethal than slashing. A stab is death, a slash is a wound.


　　比对手的剑长出大约30厘米的秦剑，在格斗中显然更容易刺到对方，这很可能是秦剑加长的主要原因。但是，这毕竟是青铜剑，秦人用什么方法让长剑不易折断呢？
With a sword that's 30 cm (1 foot) longer than that of their opponent, it is thus easier to stab the opponent in combat. This is a possible reason behind lengthening the sword. But this is a bronze sword. What techniques did the Qin apply to make it difficult to break?

　　在青铜时代，铸剑的关键是在冶炼时，向铜里加入多少锡。锡少了，剑太软；锡多了，剑硬，但容易折断。
In the bronze age, the crucial moment of making the sword is when one melt the metals that make up the alloy. Too little tin would make the sword too soft, too much tin would make it hard, but brittle.

　　对秦剑做的化学定量分析显示：它的铜锡配比让青铜剑的硬度和韧性结合得恰到好处。但秦剑更让人着迷的地方，是它的外形。袁仲一教授仔细地研究了秦剑奇特的形状变化。
Chemical analysis and quantification of the Qin swords showed that the Copper : Tin ratio is balanced to give the sword enough hardness and flexibility. But Qin swods also has an alluring characteristic, which is its shape. Professor Yuan Zhong Yi thus carefully examined the unique warping of the shape of the Qin sword.

　　这种设计使秦剑的受力部分得到加强，而又保持一定的弹性，同时剑身又不会过于沉重。或许，秦剑加长暗示着秦军对格斗技巧的认识有了某种重大的突破。
This design reinforces the point of application of force on the Qin sword while perserving a certain degree of flexibility. At the same time, the sword is not overly heavy. It is possible that the lengthening of the Qin sword is a certain great breakthrough in the Qin army's recognition of melee tactics.

　　秦剑是青铜剑铸造工艺的顶峰，它的长度、硬度和韧性达到了几乎完美的结合，攻击性能也因此大大增加。司马迁记载：秦始皇只一击就使刺客荆轲倒地不起，燕国也随后灭亡。
Qin swords is the pinnacle of bronze craftsmanship. Its length, hardness and tensile strength is a near perfect combination. The offensive attributes is thus increased greatly. Sima Qian wrote: Qin Shihuang only struckc once and Jing Ke could not get up. Yan was annihilated afterwards.

　　两千多年前，在消灭了中原六国之后，北方的游牧民族匈奴人就成了秦军主要的对手。在秦军进行统一战争的时候，匈奴骑兵乘机南下，侵占了黄河以南大面积的土地。在帝国地都城咸阳，如何对付剽悍的匈奴骑兵就摆到了秦始皇面前。
2000 years ago, after destroying the 6 states of the Central Plains, the northern nomads, the Xiong Nu, became the main opponent of the Qin. In the Qin campaigns to unify China, Xiong Nu cavalry armies swept south and occupied huge areas of land to teh south of the Yellow River. In the capital of the new empire, the problem of how to deal with the fierce Xiong Nu armies was brought to Qin Shihuang.

当匈奴骑手高速冲锋的时候，传统的步兵很难抵挡。从历史记录来看，一种叫弩的远射兵器很可能在秦军击溃匈奴的战斗中发挥了主导作用。
When the Xiong Nu cavalryman makes a high speed charge, traditional infantrymen would find it hard to halt. From the historical records, a weapon called the Nu (crossbow) was possibly the major weapon by which the Qin army defeats the Xiong Nu in their battles.

　　在兵马俑坑，由于时间太过久远，弩的木制部分已经朽烂，但完整的遗迹仍然可以复原当初的秦弩。据此复原的秦弩，有着惊人的力量。
In the terracotta army pits, the wooden stock and parts of the crossbow had totally decomposed over the long periods of time. But complete traces and depressions allows us to recreate the Qin crossbow. The recreated crossbow has some surprising powers.

　　与弓不同，秦弩必须用脚蹬、借助全身的力量才能上弦。专家估计，这种秦弩的射程应该能够达到300米，有效杀伤距离在150米之内，秦弩的杀伤力远远高于当时任何一种弓。
Unlike the bow, the Qin crossbow must be loaded with the help of a stirrup and the strength of the whole body. Experts estimate that the range of the Qin crossbow is up to 300 meters (1000 feet) and effecive killing range is at 150 meters (500 feet). Qin crossbows thus have a much higher killing power than any type of bow.

　　在弩腐烂后留下的痕迹中，考古人员发现了青铜制作的小机械。这些小小的青铜构件就是弩用来发射的扳机。它的设计得非常精巧。令人不解的是，秦人为什么不把它做得更简单一些呢？
In the traces left behind by the decomposed crossbows, archaeologists discover small mechanisms of bronze. These small mechanisms are the trigger of the crossbow that fires the bolt. Its design is intricate. It is confusing why the Qin didn't make it simpler.

　　假设一种最简单的方案，制造成本可以大大降低。但是，射手完全靠手指的力量把勒得很紧的弓弦推出勾牙， 就要用很大的力气，在击发瞬间，弩肯定会抖动。今天的射击训练，击发瞬间连呼吸调整不好都有可能影响射击的准确性。
A simple protocol would be able to reduce cost by a great deal. But the crossbowman can only use the strength of his finger to fire the highly stressed crossbow to release the catch. This would need a lot of strength. At the moment of fire, the crossbow would quaver. In modern shooting practice, even a slight misstep in breathing at the moment of fire would affect the accuracy of the bullet.

　　秦军的弩机通过一套灵巧的机械传递，让勾牙在放箭瞬间突然下沉，扣动扳机变得异常轻巧。这恰恰是弩对弓的优势之一，拉弓要用很大的力气，时间越长，越难控制瞄准的稳定。
The Qin crossbow thus has a delicate but intelligent mechanical trigger. At the moment of fire the catch would sink and this eases the trigger action. Thus, this is the advantage of the crossbow versus the bow. A bow requires a great strength to draw, and the longer the string is held, the harder it is to control accuracy.

　　弩机上的望山，在上弦时可以自动地把扳机重新调整到击发的位置。但它还有另一个不可思议的功能！
The Wang Shan (viewing the mountain) on the crossbow can be readjusted automatically to the position before fire when the crossbow is reloaded. But it has another unbelievable ability!

　　可以推想，在与匈奴骑兵厮杀的战场上，秦军弩兵射击的情形。当瞄准远处的目标时，射手参照望山估算弩抬高的角度，弩箭沿抛物线轨迹就可以准确命中敌人。望山，很可能是步兵武器最原始的瞄准系统。
We can extrapolate in the battlefields where Xiong Nu cavalry charges in melee and the Qin army retaliate with crossbow fire. When aiming for a distant target, the crossbowman can estimate using the Wang Shan on how high he should elevate his crossbow. The crossbow bolts fired would thus follow a parabolic path and hit the enemies accurately. Thus, the Wang Shan might be the precursor of aiming systems on infantry weapons.

　　在兵马俑坑，出土最多的青铜兵器是箭头，由于在坑中没有发现弓，考古人员认为，这些青铜箭头都是为弩配备的。
In the terracotta army pits, most of the unearthed bronze weapons are arrow heads. There isn't any bows discovered. Hence, archaeologists believe that these bronze arrowheads are made for the crossbow.

　　战国时代，箭头的种类繁多，这些箭头上的倒刺和血槽让人感到阵阵杀气。而在兵马俑坑中发现的箭头，几乎都是三棱形的。秦军为什么单单选择了这种三棱箭头呢？
In Warring states period, there are many forms of arrowheads with blood grooves and reverse hooks that give the beholders senses of dread and death. But the arrowheads discovered in the pits are almost entirely trigonal pyramidal. Why did the Qin army choose the trigonal pyramidal for their arrowheads?

　　三棱箭头拥有三个锋利的棱角，在击中目标的瞬间，棱的锋刃处就会形成切割力，箭头就能够穿透铠甲、直达人体。
The trigonal pyramidal arrowheads has 3 sharp edges. At the moment of impact, the 3 sharp edges would create cutting powers that would allow the arrowhead to cut through armor and into the flesh.

　　带翼箭头有凶狠的倒刺，但翼面容易受风的影响，使箭头偏离目标。
A winged arrowhead has dreadful reverse hooks, but the wing faces is easily affected by wind and would deviate the arrow from its designated target.

　　秦军的这种三棱箭头取消了翼面，应该使射击更加精准。专家对这些箭头进行了仔细地分析。当检测数据最终摆到桌面上的时候，研究人员确实感到难以置信。
The trigonal pyramidal arrowhead of the Qin thus takes away the winged faces and makes the shooting more acurate. Experts carried out careful analysis on these arrowheads. When the numbers and results were brought to the table, the researchers also found it hard to believe.

　　检测结果发现：箭头的三个弧面几乎完全相同，这是一种接近完美的流线型箭头。
The testing results discovered that the 3 faces of the arrowheads are almost perfect matches. This is an arrowhe that with a near perfect streamlined shape.

　　这种箭头的轮廓线跟子弹的外形几乎一样。子弹的外形是为了减低飞行过程中的空气阻力。我们有理由推测，秦人设计这种三棱形箭头也是出于同样的目的。
The curved faces of the arrowhead resembles the shape of a bullet.. The bullet is thus shaped to reduce drag in flight. We thus have enough reasons to conclude that the Qin designed these trigonal pyramidal arrowhead for the same purpose.

　　秦人凭经验接近了现代空气动力学的规律。这种古老的箭头是早期飞行器当中的范本，它和今天的子弹一脉相承。秦弩，连同它配备的弩箭，在那个时代很可能是技术含量最高的武器，它使秦军的攻击力大为加强。
The Qin, through experience, thus approaches aerodynamic studies of the modern age. This ancient arrowhead is a model, and it has the same goal as the modern bullet head. The Qin crossbow, along with its bolts, are thus at its time a piece of high technology weapons that allowed the Qin armies to have increaed offensive power.

　　公元前214年，秦军发动了针对匈奴骑兵的全面战争。仅仅一年的时间，30万匈奴骑兵就被彻底击溃，黄河以南的大片土地重新回归秦国。
In 214 BC, the Qin army started an all out war against the Xiong Nu cavalry. In just about year, the 300000 strong Xiong Nu cavalry army was completely crushed and the huge tracts of land to the south of the Yellow River was recovered by the Qin.

　　秦军之所以能够取胜，弩的作用至关重要。可以设想，在匈奴骑兵还没冲到眼前时，强劲的秦弩就密集准确地击中战马和骑手。持弩的秦骑兵射击的准确程度是匈奴人的弓无法相比的，匈奴人的皮甲也抵挡不住弩箭强大的穿透力。
The crossbow was crutical in the Qin army's victories. We can thus imagine that even before the Xiong Nu cavalry was within sight, the powerful Qin crossbows were already loosing concentrated showers accurately on the horses and riders of Xiong Nu. The mounted crossbowmen of Qin has far more accuracy than the Xiong Nu horse archers, and the leather armor of the Xiong Nu could not defeat the penetrative powers of the crossbow bolt.

　　对马背上的匈奴骑手而言，弩是最致命的武器。中国兵书经典《武经讲义》中说：弩是对付古代游牧部落袭击最为有效的武器。青铜弩机的设计是一个惊人的成就，对于匈奴人而言，这种机械装置太复杂了，他们很难装配或仿制。
To the Xiong Nu mounted archer, the crossbow is the most lethal weapon. The Chinese Weapon classic, Wu Jing Jiang Yi, recorded: the crossbow is the most effective weapon against the ancient nomadic tribes. The bronze crossbow design is thus a great accomplishment. To the Xiong Nu, the mechanism is too complex making it difficult for them to equip or copy.

　　当专家们对秦军兵器的研究逐步深入时，他们又有了新的发现。
When the experts carried out further investigation, they made new discoveries.

　　铍是一种起源于短剑的长柄兵器，它的形式曾经五花八门。但是，在俑坑中发现的铍，尽管生产日期相隔十几年， 造型和尺寸却完全一致。
The Po is a polearm derived from the short sword. Its designs are greatly varied, but the Po unearthed at the pits, though some being over a decade apart in the time of manfuacture, has the same design and dimensions.

　　这两件戈也不是同年生产的，但它们也是一模一样。
So are the 2 Ge that was made indifferent years. They are also copies of each other.

湖北鄂洲是楚国的旧地，考古人员在这里发现了一把秦剑。细长的秦剑和当年楚国的青铜剑完全不同。但是，它的造型跟陕西兵马俑坑中的秦剑却完全相同。
E Zhou at Hubei used to be under Chu dominion. The archaeologists discovered a Qin swod there. It is different from the Chu swords at that time, but it is another exact copy with the sword uncovered from the pits at Shaanxi.

　　在兵马俑坑中发现的三棱箭头有4万多支，但它们都制作得极其规整，箭头底边宽度的平均误差只有正负0.83毫米。
There are over 10000 trigonal pyramidal arrowheads at the pits, but they are manufactured to a great degree of precision. The width of the underside of the arrowheads has only a range of + - 0.83 mm.

　　北京理工大学的冶金专家对秦军箭头做了金相分析，结果发现它们的金属配比基本相同，数以万计的箭头竟然是按照相同的技术标准铸造出来的。这就是说，不论是在北方草原，还是在南方丛林的各个战场，秦军射向对手的所有箭头，都具有同样的作战质量。难道，地处秦国各地的兵器作坊都在有意识地，甚至是强制性地按照某个固定的技术标准生产兵器吗？如果真是这样的话，秦人就远远地超越了自己的时代。
Metallurgy experts of Beijing Li Gong Da Xue (university of technology of Beijing) did analysis on the arrowheads. The results showed that the tens of thousands of arrows produced has similar alloy composition. Thus, whether it is on the plains of the north or the jungles in the south, the arrowheads that Qin crossbowmen sends against his opponents on the battlefield are of a unified standard. Can it be that the manufacturies and arsenals across the Qin empire is self-consciously or enforced to follow an established protocol and technique in weapons manufacture? If that is true, the Qin has far exceeded their age.

　　标准化，是现代工业的基础。标准化生产使不同的供应商生产的零部件可以组装在一起，也使大规模的生产成为可能。在两千年前农业文明刚刚开始成熟的时代，假如秦人真的有过标准化的兵器生产，他们的目的又是什么呢？
Standardization is the basis of modern industry. The standard mode of production allows the widespread use of standard parts manufactured in various industries, and makes large scale production a possibility. But when the agricultural civilizations were just maturing 2000 years ago, even if the Qin has standardized weapon manufacture, what is their goal?

　　秦军使用的弩机，由于制作的十分标准，它的部件应该是可以互换的。在战场上，秦军士兵可以把损坏的弩机中仍旧完好的部件重新拼装使用。秦军的其他兵器虽然也可以互换，但对于大多数古代兵器来说，互换性要求的精确度并不很高。专家推测：秦人的标准化应该还有更重要的目的。
The Qin crossbow are manufactured uniformly. They have interchangeable parts. In warfare, Qin soldiers can take apart and reassemble broken crossbows. Other weapons are also interchangeable. But to most ancient weapons, the accuracy that is demanded of them is not high enough. Experts thus predict that the standardization of weapons has greater objective.

　　兵马俑坑中发现的各种兵器，在战场上应该有优异的表现。很可能是秦军从几百年的战争实践中优选出来的。专家推测，秦人很可能将优选兵器的技术标准固定，国家再通过法令将这些技术标准发放到所有的兵工厂。
The various weapons at the pits performed admirably well on the fields of battle. It is possible that the Qin army, from their centuries of warfare experience, chose these designs. Experts predict that the Qin set a standard for these manufacturing techniques for these tried and tested weapons and the empire would thus issue Fa Ling (legal commandments) to enforce these procedures and dimensions to all the manufacturies.

　　尽管按今天的工业标准看，这些兵器的标准化仍旧是比较粗糙和初步的，但是，在两千多年前，秦人执著于统一标准，肯定是为了保证所有秦军战士使用的都是当时最优秀的兵器。
Despite the immaturity and crudeness of the degree of standardization according to modern standards, the Qin adherance to a set standard over 2000 years ago thus has the objective of ensuring that every soldier in the Qin army would be using the best weapons of their time.

　　秦军的兵器制作得相当精致。在青铜剑上有三条90多厘米长的棱线，将细长的剑身分成八个面，手工要完成这样的表面加工有很大的难度。
The Qin weapon manufacture is very intricate. The bronze sword has 3 ridge lines over 90 cm long (3 feet). A slender sword is thus divided into 8 facings. This is thus a difficult process.

　　戈的圆弧部分加工得十分规整，箭头上三个流线型的表面也完全对称。
The curve of the Ge is also highly standardized, and the 3 faces of the arrowheads are at perfect alignment.

　　让专家迷惑的是，某些天才的工匠制造出几件这样的兵器是可能的，但实际情况是，兵马俑坑中几万件兵器几乎都是同样的质量。
To the confused experts, these ingenius craftsmen might be able to craft several pieces of weapons of such perfection. But what is being unearthed shows that almost the entire batch of tens of thousands of weapons were of the same high quality.

　　根据司马迁的记载，秦军的数量超过了100万。不仅如此，这支军队高度专业化，装备极其复杂的武器系统。在差不多同一时期的欧洲，亚历山大的军队是5万人左右，最为强盛时的罗马军团也不过几十万人。
According to Sima Qian, the Qin army had over 1 million men. Not only that, this army was extremely professionalized, with complex weapon equipments and organization. At the same time in Europe, Alexander's army is only about 50000 men. The Roman Empire at its height has only several hundred thousand men.

　　为一支100万的军队提供兵器，是一个可怕的任务，在十年统一战争的岁月里，秦国的兵器作坊肯定是全世界最繁忙的地方，他们必须开足马力，日以继夜。问题在于，怎样才能既保证标准，又大批量生产呢？
To equip an army of 1 million is a monstrous tasks. In the 10 years of wars of unification, Qin weapon manufacturies would thus be the busiest places in the world. They must work to full capacity all day and night. But how can they maintain the standards of manufacture as well as the output?

　　仔细观察这只戈的圆弧处，打磨的痕迹还清晰可见，手工打磨，会有交错的磨痕，那是锉刀往返摩擦造成的。奇怪的是，这些磨痕没有交错的痕迹。专家推测，秦军青铜兵器的表面加工很可能是用砂轮实现的。两千多年前是否有砂轮还有待考古证据，即便是用砂轮，靠手的感觉来完成这些弧形表面的加工，要让成千上万件兵器达到同一个标准也是不可能的。
In careful observation of the curve of the Ge, there are signs of polish. Polishing by hands would give criss-crossed markings due to the repeated to and fro action with the sharpening tool. However, the markings on the Ge are not criss crossed. Experts predict that the Qin bronze weapons are finished with the sharpening wheel. It is still debatable whether there are such tools 2000 years ago. And even if there are, it is impossible to manufacture tens of thousands of weapons to such a set standard on a curve.

　　在兵马俑坑中的兵器上面，刻着一些文字。这些文字和今天的汉字很相像。研究人员发现，它们大多是人名，其中出现次数最多的一个人是“相邦吕不韦”。
On the weapons uncovered at the pits, there are some words engraved on it which is close to modern chinese characters. Archaeologists discovered that they are mostly names of people. The name "Premier Lu Bu Wei" is most common.

　　吕氏春秋是秦国最重要的一本历史文献，它的编撰者就是吕不韦。吕不韦是当时秦国的丞相，相当于今天的国家总理。吕氏春秋上说：物勒工名，意思是，器物的制造者要把自己的名字刻在上面。
Lu Shi Chun Qiu is the most important historical literature of Qin. Its chief editor is Lu Bu Wei who was the premier of Qin at that time, similar to the prime minister of modern times. Lu Shi Chun Qiu records: Wu Le Gong Ming, which means that the manufacturer must engrave their names on their products.

　　对于历史学家来说，这些看似普通的文字透露的是秦国军事工业的管理机密。吕不韦作为内阁总理，是兵器生产的最高监管人。他的下面是工师，就是各兵工厂的厂长，监制这只戈的厂长叫“蕺”。
To the historian, these seemingly common names show the management secrets of the Qin arms industry. Being the chief of internal affairs, Lu Bu Wei is thus also the highest executive of weapon manufacture. Beneath him are the Gong Shi, or the factory heads that oversees each industry. The Gong Shi of this Ge is (I don't know what character that is)...

　　在厂长的下边是丞，类似车间主任，这位主任的名字叫“义”。
Beneath the Gong Shi is the Cheng, synonymous with the mid-level managers. This man is called Yi.

　　而亲手制作这只戈的工匠，叫“成”。
The craftsmen that made the weapons with their hands is the Cheng.

　　专家由此推断：秦国的军工管理制度分为四级。从相帮、工师、丞到一个个工匠，层层负责，任何一个质量问题都可以通过兵器上刻的名字查到责任人。我们已经无法知道管理的细节，但秦国的法律对失职者的惩罚是非常严酷的，这就是物勒工名的用意。
Experts thus conclude that the Qin weapon manufacture is divided into 4 levels: from premier, Gong shi, Cheng to the craftsmen. Each level is responsible for the other. A quality defect can thus be traced to the top. We may no longer know the details of management, but Qin law dictates cruel punishments to those that failed their duties. This is the meaning of Wu Le Gong Ming.

　　透过这些冰冷的青铜铭文，我们或许还能看到那个遥远年代中一些普通人的命运。
From these cold bronze carvings, we can even possibly see the fate of the commoners at that time.

　　这个叫Zhe的人做了好多年兵工厂的厂长，ZHE每天都要检查兵器生产，他得向丞相吕不韦负责。如果兵器质量有问题，按照秦国的法律，厂长首先遭受处罚。为了自己和一家老小，他必须尽职尽责。
A Gong Shi named Zhe held the position for many years. Everyday he has to check on the weapons manufacture and report directly to the premier. If there is any defect, the Gong Shi himself would be punished first. For the sake of himself and his whole family, he thus must do his job dutifully.

　　处在这个金字塔式的管理体系最底层的，是数量庞大的工匠。专家在铭文中一共发现了16个工匠的名字。
At the bottom of this pyramidal organization are large numbers of craftsmen. There are 16 named craftsmen from the engraved texts.

　　在秦国的手工工场，工人一般都是终身制。无论如何，这个叫DIAO的工匠一生都得在工场度过了。16年的劳作，“窵”不知道经历过多少次的坎坷。就是这些像“窵”一样的普通人，制造出了留到今天的这些精良兵器，从一丝不苟的加工痕迹上，我们至今还能感受到他们粗糙的双手和专注的目光。
In the arsenals of Qin, these craftsmen serve for life. A craftsmen named Diao spent his entire life in the arsenal. Another craftsmen Xie has served for 16 years through untold numbers of difficulties. It is the common men like Xie that made these quality weapons. From the seriousness and devotion we see from the finishings of the weapons, we can even feel their roughened hands and focused eyes today.

　　秦国众多的兵工厂能够按照统一的标准大批量地制作高质量的兵器，金字塔式的四级管理制度是根本保证。当世界上大部分地方仍然被荒蛮和蒙昧包围的时候，而秦人就以他们独特的思维方式和智慧，创造出了那个时代最强大的兵器制造业。
The pyramidal 4 level organization ensured that the numerous arsenals of Qin could mass produce high quality weapons. Even when most of the world was still uninhabited, the Qin has, with their unique outlook and intelligence, created the most powerful weapon manufactures of its time.

　　现在，我们可以来回答最初的那个问题了：在秦的时代，人们还不能象处理青铜一样熟练地用铁，铁的冶炼和铸造还处在发展阶段。所以，中国历史上第一个大一统的帝国，仍旧是青铜铸就的。
Now, we can answer our first question. At the time of Qin, people are still unable to use iron with the degree of perfection as bronze. The melting and casting of iron is still in developmental stages. Thus, China's first unified empire is forged through bronze.

　　2000多年前，秦人将青铜的性能发展到了极致，在波澜壮阔的统一战争中，这些青铜兵器曾经发挥了巨大的威力。然而，秦军战士怎样使用青铜兵器，强大的秦军究竟是如何作战的呢？这支从远古走来的军团，还有更多的未解之谜激发着人们的好奇心
Over 2000 yeras ago, the Qin developed bronze to the extreme. In the vast and epic battles, these bronze weapons displayed their powers. However, how did the Qin warriors use these weapons and how did the mighy Qin army fight their wars? This ancient armies still held more secrets to incite the curiosity amongst humans.

[/quote]

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index. ... =135&st=15

Too bad this article simply accepted the 1 million army figure as factual without any questioning.

There are numerous books that provides in depth analysis on the Qin army, but most of those sources are written in Chinese, so it's kinda hard for anyone who don't understand Chinese to get any reliable source or even get the translation of those source.


Hopefully Painrack can explain the Qin Army better for everyone here.

[Logical Mike]

Well China did invent the crossbow some 1000 years before their European counterparts...

I think this would be a numbers game, as it is perceived that the Qin raised the largest standing armies in the ancient world, numbering between 250,000-1,000,000 heads for the final invasion to unify the country.

You could have 50,000 of Rome's finest, and they would barely dent Qin's army.

One on One or even 20,000 v 50,000 I give the nod to rome/gauls due to superior weaponry, armor, and tactics however. In addition, sea power clearly was not in China's interest, so if this is a coastal battle, forget it.

[Straha]

I think this would be a numbers game, as it is perceived that the Qin raised the largest standing armies in the ancient world, numbering between 250,000-1,000,000 heads for the final invasion to unify the country.

No. Fifty years before the Qin dynasty, during the First Punic War, Rome and Carthage engaged in a naval battle (whose name escapes me because it's six A.M.) that was the largest naval engagement in terms of manpower until Guadalcanal.

During the second Punic War Rome raised 26 legions at its height (roughly 500,000 men, give or take. Unless I'm off by some, Thanas?), projected that force across three theaters (Italy, Spain and Sicily) and maintained a large Naval force as well, all while being denied access to a good portion of its potential Manpower because of cities which had joined with Hannibal and having lost multiple legions already to Hannibal.

The Republic raised armies as it saw fit and put them into the field as necessary. When it was necessary it could put armies in sizes that hadn't been matched to the modern day.

You could have 50,000 of Rome's finest, and they would barely dent Qin's army.

Leaving aside what I dealt with above, putting 250,000 soldiers together in one place was a major liability in ancient warfare, not an asset. These people needed food and water, and generally obtained both by pillaging the countryside. When you get to that sort of size concentrated in one place you can't possibly feed the army, and you will literally drink rivers dry. The army has to be dispersed over a wide range if you don't want it to starve and kill itself with its own ponderous size.

[Logical Mike]

I'm sorry, were logistics asked to be figured into this matter?

As I said, there is no doubt the Romans were better equipped and better trained. And i have no doubts that any reasonible conflict would end poorly for the Qin.

However, the Qin DID raise and UTILIZE an army that was rumored to have been one of the largest ever assembled in history. Of course, chinese historians tend to go way overboard in terms of numbers and results, so true number is impossible to quantify. However remember he conquered a landmass that required a sizable force just to maintain control of the country. Which of course, the emporer failed at because he was quite nutter.

Also, tactics on the battlefield favor the Romans as well. Where as rome had developed clear strategies to employ calvary and archers. The Qin tended to fight head on and save their bolt weapons for their early calvary.

[ray245]

Also, tactics on the battlefield favor the Romans as well. Where as rome had developed clear strategies to employ calvary and archers. The Qin tended to fight head on and save their bolt weapons for their early calvary.

Source for this claim?

[Logical Mike]

Also, tactics on the battlefield favor the Romans as well. Where as rome had developed clear strategies to employ calvary and archers. The Qin tended to fight head on and save their bolt weapons for their early calvary.

Source for this claim?

This book is a good source on how China refined it's tactics throughout ancient history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuo_Zhuan

Of course, that only really covers the formation of the armies.

You can refer to the three kingdoms as well.

In addition, there is an excellent documentary of this from the History Channel called China's first emperor. It's widely available.

Remember, a lot of their initial adaptation was to combat the mongrels/barbarians north who tended to fight on horseback.

[Straha]

I'm sorry, were logistics asked to be figured into this matter?

Do you realize how profoundly stupid that question is? In the words of Stas Bush "You're making history cry."

As I said, there is no doubt the Romans were better equipped and better trained. And i have no doubts that any reasonible conflict would end poorly for the Qin.

However, the Qin DID raise and UTILIZE an army that was rumored to have been one of the largest ever assembled in history. Of course, chinese historians tend to go way overboard in terms of numbers and results, so true number is impossible to quantify. However remember he conquered a landmass that required a sizable force just to maintain control of the country. Which of course, the emporer failed at because he was quite nutter.

And, as I pointed out, the Romans raised and utilized equally sized, if not larger, armies. Moreover at the time of the Qin dynasty (220 B.C.) they definitely had the ability to put under arms a much larger army than they historically did during the second Punic War. What the Qin were able to do pales in comparison to the contemporaneous Romans.

[ray245]

And, as I pointed out, the Romans raised and utilized equally sized, if not larger, armies. Moreover at the time of the Qin dynasty (220 B.C.) they definitely had the ability to put under arms a much larger army than they historically did during the second Punic War. What the Qin were able to do pales in comparison to the contemporaneous Romans.

Of course, with the additional fact that historical records has always depict the State of Chu as the nation that has the largest army fielded at the end period of the Warring states era, as opposed to the State of Qin.

[Thanas]

Ray, that article you cite is not worth a lot to a historian.

Well China did invent the crossbow some 1000 years before their European counterparts...

I think this would be a numbers game, as it is perceived that the Qin raised the largest standing armies in the ancient world, numbering between 250,000-1,000,000 heads for the final invasion to unify the country.

You are aware that ancient historians almost all inflate numbers? Please explain how someone is supposed to maintain an army of 1.000.000 heads in that time period - heck, the romans only managed to supply about ~700.000 men at most. And they did it with a very advanced logistics train.

Remember, a lot of their initial adaptation was to combat the mongrels/barbarians north who tended to fight on horseback.

Which won't really give them much of an advantage in european combat.

[ray245]

Ray, that article you cite is not worth a lot to a historian.

Ah, I'll try and find more reliable historical source. The hard part is trying to find all the reliable historical source that has been translated into English or some other European language.

Most of the most in depth research about the historical Chinese armies has yet to be translated into English.

[lord Martiya]

During the second Punic War Rome raised 26 legions at its height (roughly 500,000 men, give or take. Unless I'm off by some, Thanas?), projected that force across three theaters (Italy, Spain and Sicily) and maintained a large Naval force as well, all while being denied access to a good portion of its potential Manpower because of cities which had joined with Hannibal and having lost multiple legions already to Hannibal.

Actually, the manipular legion of the time had a nominal strenght of 4500 men (300 horsemen, 1200 light infantry, 2400 heavy infantry equipped with sword and javelins and 600 veteran heavy infantry equipped with sword and spear). 26 legions would have been 117000 soldiers divided into 7800 horsemen, 31200 light infantry, 62400 heavy infantry and 15600 veteran heavy infantry. All of this WITHOUT counting the 'artillery', as the Romans started using ballistas in that period and sometimes used it as field artillery (especially the lighter version called scorpio).
Now, for the confront, I don't know a lot about the Qin armies of the time, but I have the impression that their main strenght was in the composite bows and crossbows of their infantry. If I'm right, the Qin wouldn't stand a chance against the Romans: the ballistas and scorpios would outrange the Chinese archers, and while Roman cavalry of the time was not exactly an elite their infantry would slaughter the Chinese armies in the melee, thanks to a combination of better melee weaponry, better morale (volunteers against conscripts), better training and a nice barrage of killing and disrupting javelins on the Qin heads five seconds the beginning of the melee. Superior combined arms won the day.
Against the Punic armies, the Qin would have similar problems: while the inhabitants of proper Carthage were for most part sailors, they had a varied and strong army composed of Lybian heavy infantry normally fighting in phalanx, lighter infantry from Lybia and Hiberia, medium Gaulish and Sardinian infantry, the famous Numidian light cavalry, Iberian and Gaulish heavy cavalry, the infamous war elephants and, as the elite, a phalanx of Carthagians devoted to win or die (similar to some Greek elite corps like the Theban Sacred Bands, only larger) and capable to fight the Roman armies and win, if well led (like at Tunis). The equal and opposite of the Roman legions of the time, where only the commander would win the day. Against such an army, the Qin could use their archers well, but would have a problem against the war elephants (at the time the Romans were the only force capable to defeat them, and only thanks to their insane barrages of javelins and a series of previous bad experiences).
Against the Marian legions, it would be a one-sided slaughter: thanks to the conquest of Lybia and Numidia, the quality of the Roman cavalry is now improved, the Roman infantry has better javelins and more training (as they're now professionals and not the average Roman citizen who trains once in a while during peace), and the field artillery is made by more numerous and better ballistas and scorpios (the Romans continued to work on always better versions of the weapon for a long time).
Now, the marauding hordes of Gauls. Or, better, the disciplined hordes of Gauls: given a capable commander, they proved quite a force to be reckoned (asks Caesar about the Siege of Gergovia), thanks both to numbers, better discipline most people gave them credit for and the general understimation they were victims of. The Gauls could be just a nuisance or a major problem, it just depends if they find a capable commander and he manage to be obeyed.
Against the Germans, instead, the Qin would win easily: at least until the Romans started to use and train them as soldiers, the Germans were just hordes of ferocious men on foots with swords and axes plus some berserker. They may give the Qin a rule for their money and even beat them if they manage to pull an ambush in favorable position, but in a normal field battle the archers would just slaughter great numbers of them before the melee with a fresh and better equipped and trained infantry and the contious attacks from light cavalry and war chariots and charges of heavy cavalry.
I noted the OP missed the two last major forces of the time, Parthians and the Diadochi. I'll cover them at the best of my knowledge.
First the Diadochi and their armies. Against them, the Qin would win thanks to combined arms: while Alexander's army could use complex tactics and the combined arms of the Macedon Phalanx, heavy (and well trained) cavalry, hoplites phalanxes, light infantry armed with bows and javelins and, after the conquest of Persia, the Persian forces of archers, war chariots and war elephants, the Diadochi ended to use only the Phalanx and let the other components of their armies degrade in quality, when they didn't dismantled them. Against archers it would be a one sided slaughter, and the Qin archers would have the right to complain for the boring job. And that's without calling in cause the rest of the army.
Now, the last force, the Parthians. An organized force based on fast moving mounted archers and heavy professional cavalry (sort of knight predecessors and elite of the army), with not very good infantry. For what I know, the Qin army was composed by the mentioned archers, a passably trained and relatively good equipped conscript infantry, war chariots and cavalry, both nomadic mounted archers and heavy cavalry. The Qin army should have the advantage: as the standard Parthian tactic was using the mounted archers to softer the enemy until the heavy cavalry would see the good time for a crushing charge, the prestigious Qin war chariots and the nomads would be a major problem for the Parthian mounted cavalry and reverse the scenario as the relatively faster nomads soften the Parthian heavy cavalry to the point the Qin heavy cavalry would be capable of fighting on par the Parthian knights or the Qin infantry would actually CRUSH them, as during the charge the weakened Parthian knights would have to endure the Qin archers all the way and then fight an infantry trained exactly to fight cavalry (both nomads, if they managed to catch them, and Chinese).

[Straha]

During the second Punic War Rome raised 26 legions at its height (roughly 500,000 men, give or take. Unless I'm off by some, Thanas?), projected that force across three theaters (Italy, Spain and Sicily) and maintained a large Naval force as well, all while being denied access to a good portion of its potential Manpower because of cities which had joined with Hannibal and having lost multiple legions already to Hannibal.

Actually, the manipular legion of the time had a nominal strenght of 4500 men (300 horsemen, 1200 light infantry, 2400 heavy infantry equipped with sword and javelins and 600 veteran heavy infantry equipped with sword and spear). 26 legions would have been 117000 soldiers divided into 7800 horsemen, 31200 light infantry, 62400 heavy infantry and 15600 veteran heavy infantry. All of this WITHOUT counting the 'artillery', as the Romans started using ballistas in that period and sometimes used it as field artillery (especially the lighter version called scorpio).

I'm not near my Roman History books for the next few weeks and my memory on the Roman Republican Army is not as sharp as I'd like it to be (which is a shame, because H. H. Scullard is my favorite historical author, and Brian Caven is the author who was the straw that made me finally decide on academic history as a road I'd really like to explore), but you're forgetting that during the Republic for each Legion Rome put in the field their Italian allies put a matching one in as well that served with it. So you've got to double the numbers above. Also some allies provided specialized services instead of legionary troops (such as massive numbers of cavalry, which some city states provided) inflating the allied contribution to the war greatly. There's more that's niggling me about your post, but it just won't come to the fore of my mind. When it comes to me I'll post it.

[ray245]

Now, for the confront, I don't know a lot about the Qin armies of the time, but I have the impression that their main strenght was in the composite bows and crossbows of their infantry. .

Then how can you make a judgement over who is better if you don't have a full understanding of the Qin army? You make plenty of assertions that Roman and other western factions will beat the Qin Army simply because the Qin has an emphasis on Archers.

If I'm right, the Qin wouldn't stand a chance against the Romans: the ballistas and scorpios would outrange the Chinese archers, and while Roman cavalry of the time was not exactly an elite their infantry would slaughter the Chinese armies in the melee, thanks to a combination of better melee weaponry, better morale (volunteers against conscripts), better training and a nice barrage of killing and disrupting javelins on the Qin heads five seconds the beginning of the melee. Superior combined arms won the day.

Yeah, too bad the Romans did lost a number of battles against people who don't have extensive use of ballistas as well. Moreover, you make a huge assertion that even the crappy Roman cavlary can beat the Qin army without explaining why. Do you even know that the Qin Army consist of cavlary forces as well?


And if I remember things correctly, the Romans did conscript troops during the second punic war.





Zor, I find it hard to find a conclusion when many factors will not even covered in your opening post. What sort of terrain are they fighting on? How many troops are fighting against each other?

Why are we even discussing this vs. thread?

[ray245]

No real analysis on how effective the crossbows are, but you can get a description on how the army is arranged from the terracotta army website.

Pit 1

There are over 6,000 terra cotta warriors and horses in Pit 1, of which 1,000 have been unearthed. They are marshaled into a well-organized battle array composed of the infantry and cavalry. The vanguard includes 210 foot soldiers divided equally into three lines. The cavalry and war chariot follow close in line, forming the main body of the battle formation. The foot soldiers are alternated with the chariots drawn by horses, lined into 38 columns. On both the northern and southern sides of the war formation stand 180 warriors which serve as flank guards. The rear guards are on the western end, with two lines facing east and another facing west. Some soldiers are armed with battle robe, and some are equipped with armor.

Pit 2

According to preliminary calculations, there are over 80 war chariots, about 1,300 terra cotta warriors and horses, and thousands of bronze weapons. It is a revelation to first discover the terra cotta general, the kneeling archer and the warrior with saddle horse in the pit. There are two slopping entrances on the northern side, and four on both ends of the eastern and western sides.

The pit can be divided into four sections.

Section 1: Lying in the eastern corner of the pit, this section has a square shape. There are four corridors around the four sides where 60 crossbowmen are in standing posture. In the center of the square, there are four east-west passageways where 160 crossbowmen are aligned in squatting position.

Section 2: Lying in the right of the pit, section 2 measures 57 yards from east to west and 52 yards from north to south. Sixty-four war chariots make up a combat formation, which is divided into eight rows. Each of the chariots is pulled by four life-sized terra-cotta horses. Three warriors are side by side behind the chariot, with the middle one driving the carriage and the others standing on either side.

Section 3: In the center of the pit, is a rectangular combat formation made up of 264 foot soldiers and eight cavalrymen, as well as 19 war chariots. There are three clusters. One cavalryman stands in front of a horse with one hand drawing a bow and the other hand holding the rein. Additionally, there are between eight and thirty-six foot soldiers standing in each chariot.

Section 4: In the left of the pit, there are three east-west passageways where all the cavalrymen are aligned. The section measures 55 yards from east to west and 25 yards from north to south. The four sections make up an impregnable fortress. Next to the pit, there is a large exhibition hall which has the most complete range of functions and is where visitors can directly witness the excavation work in Pit 2.

The bronze swords unearthed in Pit 2 measure 86cm (34 inches) long and are carved with eight symmetrical facets. Buried for over 2,000 years, they are still very sharp and smooth. What's more surprising is that the pliability of these bronze swords is extraordinarily good. One of the swords was found bent with a 331 pound terracotta warrior on top of it. When the heavy warrior figure was removed, the sword slowly returned to its original shape.

The swords were analyzed by scientists using modern methods. They concluded that the surfaces of these Qin swords were coated with an oxide film 10 microns thick which contained 2% chrome.

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/attract ... otta_army/

Another one is an excerpt from "The Terrocotta Army of Qin Shi Huang" by China Travel and Tourism Press, 1996.

1) BATTLE ARRAY IN VAULT 1

There are about 6,000 terracotta warriors and horses is Vault 1. At the time of writing, however, only some thousand warriors, eight war chariots and thirty-two horses have been excavated. The following is the way they are arrayed.

The chariots are arranged in mixed compositions with the foot soldiers, composing a rectangular formation facing east. It consists of four parts: the van, the rearguard, the main body and the flanks.

The vanguard is formed by three ranks of warriors, all facing east; with 68 men in each rank. It has a total strength of 204.

Immediately behind the van is the main body of the formation, a massive array extending about 184 metres with war chariots interposed with infantrymen in close order.

On either side of the main body is a single rank of men extending also for 184 metres. They stand facing out (to the north and south) and are the side guard of the formation.

At the end of the main column to the west are another three ranks of soldiers, of whom two rows stand facing east while the third row faces west to guard against attacks from the rear.

The above goes to show how compactly the array of the pottery army is organized.

An important principle followed in ancient times in lining up a battle array was that each formation must have a crack force as the van and a powerful force to bring up the rear. Without a dauntless vanguard, the army would be like a sword with no edge; without a forceful rearguard, it would be like a sword with no hilt. Only "with a sharp van and a protective rear," says Sun Bin (4th to 3rd century B.C.) in his Art of War, can an armed force "hold its own and repulse the enemy." The battle formation of the terracotta Qin army conforms with this principle.

The pottery warriors in the van of Vault 1 are light-dressed without armour or helmet. They have their hair tied up in buns and legs protected in leggings, and use bows or crossbows as their weapons. They can only be the fleet-footed warriors who could "scale great heights and march long distances."

Behind the van is a column of 38 files composed of chariots and foot soldiers. All the warriors, being the heavy-dressed ones, wear armour and shin guards and hold a variety of longshaft and shooting weapons. They are outfitted for protracted hand-to-hand encounters with the enemy.

The battle formation in Vault 1 clearly places the light and vigorous force in front, followed by the heavy and powerful, to integrate assaulting impact with enduring strength. This created a mighty fighting force with which to shatter enemy positions and wipe out a strong foe.

The war chariots at the eastern end of Vault 1 are positioned in pairs, each pair a fighting unit. One of the pair is the leader, the other the supporting chariot. In defence the two would cover each other in attacks from all sides; in assault they would mount a pincer movement. The two were inseparable; separated, both would be doomed to failure.

As for coordination between chariots and men, each chariot is manned by three armoured soldiers, namely one chariot driver and two warriors, and is covered by infantrymen on all sides. Twelve men precede it in three rows of four, forming a squad to fight the enemy in front. Flanking it, soldiers varying in number between 52 and 60, also in ranks of four, form two small phalanxes to march alongside the chariot, each responsible for dealing with the enemy from one side. Then a fourth group of between seventy-two and over a hundred men bring up the rear of each chariot.

This system of grouping four bodies of foot soldiers round a chariot, called the "five-element formation" in its time, was meant to ensure close coordination between the two arms and to provide greater infantry cover to the chariots. It also allowed ample room for the employment of flexible tactics. When the chariots were handicapped in movements in defensive operations or on rugged terrain, greater reliance was placed on the infantry. On flat terrain the chariots were placed ahead of the foot soldiers and employed as the main combat force assisted by the infantrymen. This tactic is summarised succinctly by an ancient writer in these words: "Chariots precede the foot, with the latter filling up the gaps, ... Dispatch chariots to meet the enemy; follow up with the soldiers to meet the changing situation." (Research in a Mountain Cottage: Chariot Warfare.) It appears clear, therefore, that the relative positioning of the chariots and foot soldiers changed with varying topography and combat situation.


2) BATTLE ARRAY IN VAULT 2

The general layout of the soldiers in Vault 2, as explained before, is like a thick letter L, and consists of four small phalanxes.

Phalanx 1 -- 174 non-armoured archers and 160 armoured archers/crossbowmen, totalling 334 men
Phalanx 2 -- 64 chariots (manned by 3 men each or 192 men)
Phalanx 3 -- 19 chariots (manned by 3 men each or 57 men) and 264 infantry, plus 8 cavalry -- 14 chariots with 8
infantry each, 3 chariots with 32 infantry each, 2 chariots with 28 infantry each plus 4 cavalry each
Phalanx 4 -- 6 chariots (manned by 2 men each) and 108 cavalry -- 6 chariots escorted by 4 cavalry each,
with main body of 84 cavalry following behind

Phalanx 1, situated at the top of the L, forms the front corner of the whole formation. It is composed of two parts: the borders and the core. Standing all along the four sides are 174 figures of bowmen, lightly clad without armour. They surround the core of the formation, which is a group of 160 archers arrayed in eight files of 20 men each. All covered by armour, they are the heavy-dressed type and hold bows and crossbows as their weapons.

Why is it that the figures on the four sides are standing while those in the middle are squatting? Two rules were to be observed in ancient times by troops using shooting weapons. First, no fellow soldiers must stand in front of those shooting so that nobody of the same side got hurt; second, archers of the same unit must take turns at shooting to keep arrows flying at the enemy and give him no reprieve. The two groups of archer figures in this phalanx are supposed to alternate between the postures of standing and squatting, depending on whether or not it is their turn to shoot. That is to say, the archers on the sides shoot first at the enemy and then squat down; they are followed by those in the middle, who stand up to start shooting. The two groups take turns at shooting so that continuous flights of arrows keep the enemy at bay.

Phalanx 2, to the right of the base of the L-formation is a chariot array composed of eight lines of eight chariots each, sixty-four in all. Each chariot, drawn by a team of four horses, carries three armoured figures - a driver and two warriors. There are no foot soldiers attached to it on any side, a type of troop deployment different from the practice prevalent in the Yin and Zhou dynasties (c. 16th to 11th century B.C.) or the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.) when chariots were without exception supported by infantry. This new discovery has revealed something we did not know before. The change must have followed the development of foot soldiers during the Warring States Period (475-221 B.C.) into an independent infantry arm. Battles were now fought by coordinated action between units of horse, foot and chariot, and it was presumably no longer necessary for each individual chariot to have foot soldiers assigned to it.

Phalanx 3, the middle of the L-formation, consists of three files of chariots reinforced with horse and foot. There are six chariots each in two of the files, and seven in the middle file, totaling nineteen. Each carries three occupants, namely one driver and two fighters as usual. At the very end of the left file a chariot with the figure of a general is the command chariot, which is followed by a group of infantry. Of the other chariots, those in front are followed by eight infantrymen each and those toward the back are supported from behind by a group of 28 or 32 foot soldiers. The rear of the phalanx includes two groups of cavalrymen, with four horses to each group, plus 32 infantrymen arranged in eight ranks of four men each. It forms an oblong echelon behind the last war chariot.

The presence of mounted soldiers in the composition of ancient battle arrays is also a new element that has just come to light. The cavalry was quick and mobile and could be used as a reserve strike force giving greater flexibility to the chariot formation.

Phalanx 4, an array mainly of mounted soldiers, occupies the corner of the letter L. A long rectangle of three columns consisting of six chariots and 108 horses and men, it may be divided into two parts: the van and the body. Forming the van or the phalanx head are the six chariots, two in each column, one behind the other but separated by a row of mounted soldiers between each two chariots. Each has two riders: a driver and a warrior. Cavalrymen sandwiched between the chariots are in rows of four, making a total of twelve mounted men. The body of the phalanx is composed of 108 cavalrymen, who stand with their steeds in rows of four in the three columns. Altogether in this phalanx are 108 horses, each with the figure of its rider standing by holding the reins.

The four phalanxes described above form an organic major formation. This form of troop deployment has been described in ancient books on the art of war as: a major formation comprises minor ones, a large battle-array consists of smaller ones, with each part linked to another, every section covering all the others. Unless a large array comprises several small ones, it would be handicapped in flexibility, and "would not be able to break into smaller fighting units" to adapt to complicated terrain or the ever-changing enemy situation: the troops would find themselves unable to spread out or take different positions, or even be thrown into confusion, crowding and jostling against each other.

The positioning of the four phalanxes reflects well-conceived military thinking. The archers' phalanx, protruding in front, faces the enemy on three sides- the front and the two flanks - and is a position to give full play to the power of their bows and arrows. The chariot formation, on the right, can engage the enemy in front and from the right and, availing itself of the "arrow cover" from the archers, is ever ready for both offensive and defensive actions. The cavalry, on the left and facing the enemy only from one flank, is covered on three sides in defence while retaining complete freedom to disengage itself from the main body in an assault. The mixed phalanx of foot, horse and chariot, placed in the middle of the formation, serves as the central coordinating force to link up the other three phalanxes described above and the rearguard placed behind. All four units, offering support to one another, may break up into separate combat units or combine to fight as an integral whole of multiple arms. Highly maneuverable, the battle-array under the command of a seasoned commander could perform miraculously on the battlefield.

The mixed composition of foot, horse and chariot in the same formation represented an important change taking place during the Warring States Period (475-2 2 1 B.C.). Before that a battle-array meant an array of chariots. The change came about with the infantry and cavalry becoming independent arms of the forces.

The three arms were meant to serve different purposes. The chariots were to "storm strong fortifications, put the formidable enemy to rout, and block the fleeing foe." The cavalry, being mobile fighters, were to "chase the foe in flight, disrupt his routes of food supply, and attack lightly armed marauders." Foot soldiers, on their part, would be employed mainly in operations in closed or marshy terrains, where the maneuvers of chariots and horses became difficult, or on garrison duty at forts and passes.

Original link : http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index. ... wtopic=234

Sigh, seems to me the only information I have gotten so far is an uncited claim from some expert in the previous article saying that the effective range of the crossbow is 150m.

[Thanas]

Against the Germans, instead, the Qin would win easily: at least until the Romans started to use and train them as soldiers, the Germans were just hordes of ferocious men on foots with swords and axes plus some berserker. They may give the Qin a rule for their money and even beat them if they manage to pull an ambush in favorable position, but in a normal field battle the archers would just slaughter great numbers of them before the melee with a fresh and better equipped and trained infantry and the contious attacks from light cavalry and war chariots and charges of heavy cavalry.

That is not true. The germans, with large numbers of them untrained by the romans, still managed to make them work hard and even defeat them in a war that consumed eight roman legions, with three of them never being rebuilt.

I noted the OP missed the two last major forces of the time, Parthians and the Diadochi. I'll cover them at the best of my knowledge.
First the Diadochi and their armies. Against them, the Qin would win thanks to combined arms: while Alexander's army could use complex tactics and the combined arms of the Macedon Phalanx, heavy (and well trained) cavalry, hoplites phalanxes, light infantry armed with bows and javelins and, after the conquest of Persia, the Persian forces of archers, war chariots and war elephants, the Diadochi ended to use only the Phalanx and let the other components of their armies degrade in quality, when they didn't dismantled them. Against archers it would be a one sided slaughter, and the Qin archers would have the right to complain for the boring job. And that's without calling in cause the rest of the army.

You know, this habit of your spouting off ideas that are pretty stupid and non-confirmed by anyone else is very, very annoying.

Now, the last force, the Parthians. An organized force based on fast moving mounted archers and heavy professional cavalry (sort of knight predecessors and elite of the army), with not very good infantry. For what I know, the Qin army was composed by the mentioned archers, a passably trained and relatively good equipped conscript infantry, war chariots and cavalry, both nomadic mounted archers and heavy cavalry. The Qin army should have the advantage: as the standard Parthian tactic was using the mounted archers to softer the enemy until the heavy cavalry would see the good time for a crushing charge, the prestigious Qin war chariots and the nomads would be a major problem for the Parthian mounted cavalry and reverse the scenario as the relatively faster nomads soften the Parthian heavy cavalry to the point the Qin heavy cavalry would be capable of fighting on par the Parthian knights or the Qin infantry would actually CRUSH them, as during the charge the weakened Parthian knights would have to endure the Qin archers all the way and then fight an infantry trained exactly to fight cavalry (both nomads, if they managed to catch them, and Chinese).

You know, I really despise people who just declare something to be "this way" especially when it becomes quite clear that they are spouting off nonsense.

[PainRack]

And, as I pointed out, the Romans raised and utilized equally sized, if not larger, armies. Moreover at the time of the Qin dynasty (220 B.C.) they definitely had the ability to put under arms a much larger army than they historically did during the second Punic War. What the Qin were able to do pales in comparison to the contemporaneous Romans.

Why would you say that? If nothing else, the Qin regularly put into the field armies comprising over 300 thousand men such as the Xiongniu expedition led by General Mengtian. Similarly, the abilities of the Warring States to constantly regenerate lost and defeated armies is no less astounding than Rome ability to regenerate armies during the Punic wars.

They might not had raised armies larger than the Romans, but they weren't inferior at that. The only realm the Chinese were weak in during this era was naval warfare, which had been pioneered by the state of Wu.

You are aware that ancient historians almost all inflate numbers? Please explain how someone is supposed to maintain an army of 1.000.000 heads in that time period - heck, the romans only managed to supply about ~700.000 men at most. And they did it with a very advanced logistics train.

The 1 million heads is almost certainly an exaggeration and counts the huge number of conscripted labour to move goods and supplies to the front.

[lord Martiya]

I'm not near my Roman History books for the next few weeks and my memory on the Roman Republican Army is not as sharp as I'd like it to be (which is a shame, because H. H. Scullard is my favorite historical author, and Brian Caven is the author who was the straw that made me finally decide on academic history as a road I'd really like to explore), but you're forgetting that during the Republic for each Legion Rome put in the field their Italian allies put a matching one in as well that served with it. So you've got to double the numbers above. Also some allies provided specialized services instead of legionary troops (such as massive numbers of cavalry, which some city states provided) inflating the allied contribution to the war greatly. There's more that's niggling me about your post, but it just won't come to the fore of my mind. When it comes to me I'll post it.

I'll wait. And I know about the Italians and allies, just I'm not sure if the sources described them in the total numbers (so the Roman legions would be 13) or said that the Romans had 26 legions and the allies other 26.

Now, for the confront, I don't know a lot about the Qin armies of the time, but I have the impression that their main strenght was in the composite bows and crossbows of their infantry. .

Then how can you make a judgement over who is better if you don't have a full understanding of the Qin army? You make plenty of assertions that Roman and other western factions will beat the Qin Army simply because the Qin has an emphasis on Archers.

If I'm right, the Qin wouldn't stand a chance against the Romans: the ballistas and scorpios would outrange the Chinese archers, and while Roman cavalry of the time was not exactly an elite their infantry would slaughter the Chinese armies in the melee, thanks to a combination of better melee weaponry, better morale (volunteers against conscripts), better training and a nice barrage of killing and disrupting javelins on the Qin heads five seconds the beginning of the melee. Superior combined arms won the day.

Yeah, too bad the Romans did lost a number of battles against people who don't have extensive use of ballistas as well. Moreover, you make a huge assertion that even the crappy Roman cavlary can beat the Qin army without explaining why. Do you even know that the Qin Army consist of cavlary forces as well?


And if I remember things correctly, the Romans did conscript troops during the second punic war.

I know the Romans lost battles against people without artillery, but were rare cases. And I'm not sure of my sources, I actually know something on the Qin army. And their cavalry: didn't I described their possible use against the Parthians?
For the Roman cavalry, I actually didn't described their possible performance against the Qin exactly because they would have been slaughtered (it often succeded until they started using Numidian and Lybian units), I gave that as granted.

Many words.

You know, if you don't explain your arguments you're not exactly contributing. But I admit you told one sensed thing: the Romans had a major defeat against the Germans. In an ambush: the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was a series of large scale ambushes led by a Roman-trained commander (at the time Arminius had even the command of an auxiliary cavalry unit in the Roman army) against 3 legions plus auxiliary troops commanded by a not-exactly great general (at least, Roman sources presents Varus as an overconfident idiot, but they may have done so to justify the major defeat).

[hongi]

I'm sorry, were logistics asked to be figured into this matter?

Qui frumentum necessariaque non praeparat, uincitur sine ferro. - Vegetius
Whoever does not prepare grain and necessities is conquered without a blow.

So yeah mate, if we want an actual comparison and not some blowhard 'hur hurr, Deadly Warriors' type conversation, logistics counts.

[Samuel]

Logistics? You are kidding, right? These two sides are on the opposite sides of the continent. Neither of them could supply and army to the other side of the world.

[ray245]

Logistics? You are kidding, right? These two sides are on the opposite sides of the continent. Neither of them could supply and army to the other side of the world.

Unless we are comparing the logistical capabilities of the Qin dynasty against any other major power during this era.

[Straha]

Logistics? You are kidding, right? These two sides are on the opposite sides of the continent. Neither of them could supply and army to the other side of the world.

You have to look at who was able to better feed, supply, train and equip their soldiers and how long they were able to keep them in the field and how far they were able to project them. That's the greater part of warfare, not combat.

I'm not near my Roman History books for the next few weeks and my memory on the Roman Republican Army is not as sharp as I'd like it to be (which is a shame, because H. H. Scullard is my favorite historical author, and Brian Caven is the author who was the straw that made me finally decide on academic history as a road I'd really like to explore), but you're forgetting that during the Republic for each Legion Rome put in the field their Italian allies put a matching one in as well that served with it. So you've got to double the numbers above. Also some allies provided specialized services instead of legionary troops (such as massive numbers of cavalry, which some city states provided) inflating the allied contribution to the war greatly. There's more that's niggling me about your post, but it just won't come to the fore of my mind. When it comes to me I'll post it.

I'll wait. And I know about the Italians and allies, just I'm not sure if the sources described them in the total numbers (so the Roman legions would be 13) or said that the Romans had 26 legions and the allies other 26.

No. Every Roman legion was matched with a unit of allies. They'd move as one, generally under the command of a Consul during the era we're talking about.

You know, if you don't explain your arguments you're not exactly contributing.

Aside from your catch on me doubling my numbers accidentally (I always remembered by rule of thumb that a legion was ten thousand men. When I was posting in this thread I doubled that to account for the allies without realizing that the ten thousand already included them.) you haven't contributed much at all. For instance, Roman Artillery played very little (if any) significance in the Second Punic War, the Gauls were actually quite a formidable force during this time judging by the incursion involving Faesula and Telamon and they tended to scare the Romans shitless, the Germans were not the cliched angry painted horde running around from place to place fighting, butchering and killing, and that's just the beginning.

You have other lovely gems in your post like:

the Diadochi ended to use only the Phalanx and let the other components of their armies degrade in quality, when they didn't dismantled them.

Which would be a real shock to the Romans, and Greeks, at Pydna, amongst all the other non-phalangites in the armies of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Or your assertion without evidence here:

The Qin army should have the advantage: as the standard Parthian tactic was using the mounted archers to softer the enemy until the heavy cavalry would see the good time for a crushing charge, the prestigious Qin war chariots and the nomads would be a major problem for the Parthian mounted cavalry and reverse the scenario as the relatively faster nomads soften the Parthian heavy cavalry to the point the Qin heavy cavalry would be capable of fighting on par the Parthian knights or the Qin infantry would actually CRUSH them, as during the charge the weakened Parthian knights would have to endure the Qin archers all the way and then fight an infantry trained exactly to fight cavalry (both nomads, if they managed to catch them, and Chinese).

Your assertion that only Romans knew how to beat elephants, and... you know what? I'm stopping there.

But a final thing: line breaks are good. Don't just hit the enter key once. Hit it twice. Second, edit your posts before you post them. That way you can fix lots of elementary mistakes and make the language run much smoother. If everyone just edited their damn posts every time (myself, admittedly, included) things would be much better here.

[Thanas]

Many words.

You know, if you don't explain your arguments you're not exactly contributing.

You are the one who is spouting unsourced idiocies left and right. As you are not someone with a degree in history, I don't like when it you do that. I also do not like it because everything you say sounds like it is either a) popular knowledge or b) copied from wikipedia.

In case you have not read the rules, you are required to back up your sources. Now, were you a poster with a history of good knowledge about a subject (like Sea Skimmer and military history, for example), I wouldn't mind. But you, "Lord" Martiya, are neither an expert nor do your posts make any sense at all.

So here is a challenge for you - I want a source for every claim you made. Do it now and don't whine about it. Also, you will use sensible english while doing so. You will also cite the relevant portions.

[PainRack]

Unless we are comparing the logistical capabilities of the Qin dynasty against any other major power during this era.

Won't the Romans be superior in this arena? The Punic wars were feats of logistics, over a region of space larger than China afterall. Especially when one remembers that Rome could constantly regenerate destroyed armies over and over again.

The best the Qin would had would be Meng Tian expedition against the Xiongniu, or the logistic endeavours to build the Great Wall.