Ancient China vs Medieval Europe

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-17 05:33pm

The Wu, Shu, and Wei kingdoms versus the Medieval kingdoms of Britain, Germany, and France.

Combat may take place anywhere in Eurasia.

Let the battle begin!

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-17 05:52pm

Just a bit of information about the kingdoms. The aforementioned Chinese kingdoms appear to have had the equivalent of chain-mail armour when the Europeans were deciding that leather was good protection. They also appear to have been regularly using such weapons as pikes, crossbows, steel-tipped arrows, swords, battle-axes, maces, cavalry, catapults, battering rams, and scorpions (gigantic crossbow seige weapon) when the Europeans were using spears, slings, pointy sticks with feathers on the tail, etc.

To even the playing field, I am pitting the Chinese against the medieval European kingdoms, at their height. As well, any medieval heroes from the British Isles, Germany, and France may be included on the European side. The Chinese may have any heroes who served in the Wu, Shu, or Wei kingdoms. Followers of Zhang Jiao may also be included on the Chinese side.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-01-17 06:21pm

As relatively technologically advanced as the Chinese were, I think the combined might of the Britons, Franks, and Holy Roman Empire would smash them into small little bits. Teutonic Knights, anyone?

Leather was not the armor of choice for medieval armies. It was common among the peasantry and militias, but even lowly men-at-arms tended to wear second-hand chain mail.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-17 07:50pm

Chinese have lots of people... One side had an army in the hundreds of thousands. IIRC, it was 300k people... Chinese had a fair amount of archers and cavalry too...

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-17 08:02pm

As relatively technologically advanced as the Chinese were, I think the combined might of the Britons, Franks, and Holy Roman Empire would smash them into small little bits. Teutonic Knights, anyone?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have forgotten to consider the effects of pikes on cavalry. After pikes were developed, the "Knight in shining armour" became far less useful, as once unhorsed, he was nearly incapable of fighting, due to his heavy armour. Chinese armoured cavalry didn't suffer from this problem as much, because their armour was much lighter. Not to say that they wouldn't suffer casualties from European pikemen, though, they would just still be able to fight even when unhorsed.

Leather was not the armor of choice for medieval armies. It was common among the peasantry and militias, but even lowly men-at-arms tended to wear second-hand chain mail.

Of course it wasn't. I never said it was. If you were to read my second post a little more carefully, you would find that I was referring to the Europeans from the time period the Wu, Shu, and Wei kingdoms are from.

Britons, Franks, and Holy Roman Empire

I specified in my first post that it was the Britons, Franks, and Germans. (Unless I made a historical error and the Germany of the time was the Holy Roman Empire

)

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-01-17 09:18pm

Admiral Griffith wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have forgotten to consider the effects of pikes on cavalry. After pikes were developed, the "Knight in shining armour" became far less useful, as once unhorsed, he was nearly incapable of fighting, due to his heavy armour.

Please don't commit the common mistake of equating tournament armour from the extremely late medieval period and early renaissance, which was nearly thick enough to stop musket balls, with the battlefield armour worn in earlier centuries. A dismounted knight had no problems standing up, as his armour weighed virtually the same as the backpacks modern soldiers carry into battle. He lost his great mobility, and ability to smash enemy formations, but was perfectly able to move and fight.

Pikes are only effective against cavalry if your troops stand their ground, and it was only the Swiss that used the 16' pikes we commonly think of

Chinese armoured cavalry didn't suffer from this problem as much, because their armour was much lighter. Not to say that they wouldn't suffer casualties from European pikemen, though, they would just still be able to fight even when unhorsed.

If they are armoured lightly, then longbows, crossbows, and other archers will rip them to shreds.

I specified in my first post that it was the Britons, Franks, and Germans. (Unless I made a historical error and the Germany of the time was the Holy Roman Empire )

It was.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-01-17 09:33pm

Wait, Wu, Shu, and Wei?
Meaning the Chinese get Zhuge Liang? They guy who routinely beat another Thrawn-class tactical genius (Cao Cao) while having vastly inferior troops and resources?
O-U-C-H.

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-17 10:04pm

Graeme Dice wrote:Please don't commit the common mistake of equating tournament armour from the extremely late medieval period and early renaissance, which was nearly thick enough to stop musket balls, with the battlefield armour worn in earlier centuries.

Point conceded. The European knights can continue to wreak havoc on the Chinese soldiers. But don't forget the strategic/tactical genius of Lu Xun. I know he can't be everywhere at once, but where ever he would be, you can probably expect to find a good chunk of the Wu army kicking the **** out of the local European army.

A dismounted knight had no problems standing up, as his armour weighed virtually the same as the backpacks modern soldiers carry into battle. He lost his great mobility, and ability to smash enemy formations, but was perfectly able to move and fight.

Conceded that the dismounted knights can still move around and attack as their armour allows. However, the Chinese still do have crossbows, and IIRC, crossbows can punch through a knight's armour fairly well. Not to mention the fact that Chinese swords were incredibly sharp and were made well enough to block a swing from a large mace without significant damage to the sword. Imagine the effect on relatively flimsy knight's armour, in which said knight can be beat up through by previously mentioned mace.

Pikes are only effective against cavalry if your troops stand their ground, and it was only the Swiss that used the 16' pikes we commonly think of.

Lu Xun. Strategic/tactical genius. Trust me, he's smarter than that.

At worst, it would probably take him about one battle to figure out that standing your ground works better against cavalry than charging them head on. The other Officers might have trouble though.

If they are armoured lightly, then longbows, crossbows, and other archers will rip them to shreds.

The type of armour I was referring to was actually intended to provide protection against arrows, specifically. Arrows only, mind you. You could fire a crossbow at the guy from 20ft or something (probably exagerrated) and it would cause little more than a horrific bruise and a shallow wound, but a sword still ripped through the stuff like leather. IIRC it was that armour that had the silkworm stuff woven into it to give it strength without weight.

P.S. Why hasn't anybody brought the European heroes in yet? I said heroes were allowed for both sides.

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-17 10:07pm

Yogi wrote:Wait, Wu, Shu, and Wei?
Meaning the Chinese get Zhuge Liang? They guy who routinely beat another Thrawn-class tactical genius (Cao Cao) while having vastly inferior troops and resources?
O-U-C-H.

Yup. Zhuge Liang, Lu Xun, Zhou Yu, Zhang He, Cao Cao, and all those other heroes.

On the other hand, the Europeans get their own geniuses, too, so it evens up.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-01-17 10:37pm

The type of armour I was referring to was actually intended to provide protection against arrows, specifically. Arrows only, mind you. You could fire a crossbow at the guy from 20ft or something (probably exagerrated) and it would cause little more than a horrific bruise and a shallow wound, but a sword still ripped through the stuff like leather. IIRC it was that armour that had the silkworm stuff woven into it to give it strength without weight.

Against a crossbow? I'm skeptical. Also keep in mind that by the 1200s steel-headed bodkin arrows were in common usage, and coupled with a Welsh or Briton longbowman...

Raining accurate death from 300 meters away...

P.S. Why hasn't anybody brought the European heroes in yet? I said heroes were allowed for both sides.

Henry V, William the Conqueror, Richard the Lionheart, and of course, Charlemagne, First Holy Roman Emperor.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-01-17 10:50pm

Ah, yes, and one of the few technological advancements the Chinese didn't have (AFAIK)... the trebuchet. I may be wrong, my Chinese history is sketchy.

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » 2003-01-17 10:59pm

Chinese and Europeans fight to a standstill....

While the Mongol Hoard sweeps in and whoops both of their asses

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-17 11:36pm

Well, according to the true history set down in my saved game of Medieval: Total War, China will either face a massive string of fortifications manned by thousands of brave Teutonic infantry or be forced to defeat the reborn Roman Empire.

In reality, though, China will probably win through sheer numbers, although I'd like to see them cross the Channel, and European castles will do horrible nasty things to their forces.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-01-17 11:52pm

JediNeophyte wrote:Ah, yes, and one of the few technological advancements the Chinese didn't have (AFAIK)... the trebuchet. I may be wrong, my Chinese history is sketchy.

Chinese siege artillery was pretty advanced, IIRC.
Who invades who here, BTW? The chinese could transport an army by sea at least to the Persian gulf, and probably around Africa had they put their talents to it. A two front war in Europe circa 1200C.E. Hmmmm

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-18 12:06am

JediNeophyte wrote:
The type of armour I was referring to was actually intended to provide protection against arrows, specifically. Arrows only, mind you. You could fire a crossbow at the guy from 20ft or something (probably exagerrated) and it would cause little more than a horrific bruise and a shallow wound, but a sword still ripped through the stuff like leather. IIRC it was that armour that had the silkworm stuff woven into it to give it strength without weight.
Against a crossbow? I'm skeptical. Also keep in mind that by the 1200s steel-headed bodkin arrows were in common usage, and coupled with a Welsh or Briton longbowman...

Raining accurate death from 300 meters away...

I, too, am skeptical. The Orient had no bows as powerful as the British longbow. While the composite recurved bow had the advantage of being usable on horseback, it had roughly half the penetrating power of a longbow, let alone a crossbow. Given that arrows could puncture steel plate, I don't think silk and leather will provide proper defense against them.

I would also like to add Roland and Archbishop Turin to the list of heroes for the European side.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-18 12:51am

Hehe, I can imagine it already...
"We must crush the heathens! Take back the holy land!"

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-01-18 01:23am

Raining accurate death from 300 meters away...

I, too, am skeptical. The Orient had no bows as powerful as the British longbow. While the composite recurved bow had the advantage of being usable on horseback, it had roughly half the penetrating power of a longbow, let alone a crossbow. Given that arrows could puncture steel plate, I don't think silk and leather will provide proper defense against them. [/quote]

You're wrong about the composite bow. On average, a well-made composite bow had at least as much pull as the longbow. The main difference was in the weight of the projectile--composite archers usually preferred lighter arrows that they might carry two or three times as many as. So, in a long range shot (the theoretical maximum for longbow and composite bow are about the same), the longbow would retain superior accuracy and power, as well as being a marginally superior armor-piercer at regular ranges. That said, the Mongols had no trouble ripping very heavily armored horsemen to bits when they fought Germans and Poles, and they used nothing but composite bows.

The Chinese also have large numbers of crossbows, good cavalry, and better leadership. (Not to overgeneralize, but the standard tactic of fighting armies of Europe in the middle ages was the massed cavalry charge. If it failed to break the enemy, they would generally keep trying. Chinese infantry are relatively disciplined, and even moreso are quite numerous. Unless the Europeans have the advantage of truly powerful commander against an average Chinese, they don't have enough real advantages to win.[/u]

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2003-01-18 11:50am

This is a good match up that I'll pay money to see.

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-18 12:03pm

Just a list of Wu, Shu, Wei, and Yellow Scarf/Turban heroes:

Cao Cao, Da Qiao, Dian Wei, Diao Chan, Dong Zhuo, Fu Xi, Gan Ning, Guan Yu, Huang Gai, Huang Zhong, Jiang Wei, Lu Bei, Lu Bu, Lu Meng, Lu Xun, Ma Chao, Meng Huo, Nu Wa, Sima Yi, Sun Ce, Sun Jian, Sun Quan, Sun Shang Xiang, Taishi Ci, Wei Yan, Xiahou Dun, Xiahou Yuan, Xiao Qiao, Xu Huang, Xu Zhu, Yuan Shao, Zhang Fei, Zhang He, Zhang Jiao, Zhang Liao, Zhao Yun, Zhen Ji, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang.

I apologize if any of these heroes never existed.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2003-01-18 12:10pm

guan yu with the big slicy pole arm lalala

Have romantic novelizations of history can result in many people turn into heros, but guan yu do get deitfied and worshiped as the god of war after he died. muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*yes I'm bored*

Lu Bei, Guan Yu, Zhang Fei brothers will 0\/\//\/ u eu @$$3$

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-18 01:10pm

Cao Cao, Da Qiao, Dian Wei, Diao Chan, Dong Zhuo, Fu Xi, Gan Ning, Guan Yu, Huang Gai, Huang Zhong, Jiang Wei, Lu Bei, Lu Bu, Lu Meng, Lu Xun, Ma Chao, Meng Huo, Nu Wa, Sima Yi, Sun Ce, Sun Jian, Sun Quan, Sun Shang Xiang, Taishi Ci, Wei Yan, Xiahou Dun, Xiahou Yuan, Xiao Qiao, Xu Huang, Xu Zhu, Yuan Shao, Zhang Fei, Zhang He, Zhang Jiao, Zhang Liao, Zhao Yun, Zhen Ji, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang.

AARG! MY EYES!

Admiral Griffith · Post by **Admiral Griffith** » 2003-01-18 02:34pm

Balrog wrote:Chinese and Europeans fight to a standstill....

While the Mongol Hoard sweeps in and whoops both of their asses

At which point the six kingdoms ally against their common enemy, waste Mongolia, and put Gengis Khan's head on a pike in the middle of where his palace formerly stood.

Then they go back to killing eachother.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-18 03:18pm

Isn't post Roman Europe fun? I don't really know much about chinese history (

) but my gut feeling here is that the chinese win. Unless The europeans can have Cardinal Richeleau (Mr. Spymaster), however he was several centuries later.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-18 03:35pm

I only skimmed the posts, but I wonder- do the Chinese have anything that can take or destroy the castles of medieval Europe?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-18 03:41pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I only skimmed the posts, but I wonder- do the Chinese have anything that can take or destroy the castles of medieval Europe?

Starvation.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ancient China vs Medieval Europe

Who wins?

Ancient China vs Medieval Europe