( 讨论帖) 汉朝 VS 罗马

矮人布鲁诺

这是国外的某论坛上的一篇关于汉朝VS罗马的帖子......

不知道大家有没有兴趣一起讨论下呢...

希望大家能够客观地, 不带民族情结地发表以下看法...


#1.

Rome vs Han China

Who would win?

The Roman Testudo and manipular infantry tactic vs the Han Dynasty crossbow and missile warfare.

当装备方盾、采用三队列的罗马军团，遇到装备强弩、采用远程投射战术的汉朝军队

谁会赢？



罗马军团的基本情况：http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E ... C%E5%86%9B%E5%9B%A2



#2.

The Romans had weak cavalry. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows.

Han infantry was weak though, but they did have very powerful crossbows. The Romans also equipped their soldiers with better armor.


同装备了标枪和弓箭的汉朝骑兵相比，罗马骑兵处于劣势。

当然汉朝步兵较弱，但是他们有威力强大的弩，想要打败汉军，罗马人需要更精良的盔甲。



#3.

romansstronger in swordbattles

罗马会赢。近距离刀剑相搏罗马更强。



#4.

However, as proven in the Battle of Canae (aka the battle where Hanibal slaughtered 60,000 Romans), Roman legionaires had a weakness to cavalry.The Han had very strong cavalry, similiar to the Hunnish cavalry that defeated the Legions in the 5th century AD.


在坎尼之战中（就是汉尼拔屠杀了6万罗马人的那场战斗）已经证明了罗马军团不善应付骑兵。不幸的是汉朝骑兵很强，就像匈奴骑兵打败罗马军团那样，汉朝会赢。



坎尼，意大利东南部一古城，古罗马著名战场，公元前216年罗马和迦太基第二次布匿战争决战于此。



#5.

it's a question that is very hard to answer.

first of all the romans was in constant expansion until they split into two empires, also they had a lot of training considering that they had extremely long military duty, if i remember correctly it was as much as 20 years (not sure on this one).

On the other hand the Chinese had crossbows that easily could penetrate the armor given to roman soldiers but range was still a major problem considering that the romans still could pepper them with bows which have both superior range and rate of fire.

on the whole it is extremely hard to predict what would have happened if the romans and the Chinese would have warred against each other

很难回答。

因为罗马一直处于扩张之中，且军队训练内容多、强度大，所以他们的兵役期很长，没记错的话大概20年（马略改制后为16年）

虽然中国人的强弩可以轻易射穿罗马人的盔甲，但是拥有更长射程和更快发射速率的罗马弓箭会像雨点一样射向中国人。

很难说谁会赢。



#6.

han china would own rome because they had 600,000 soldiers and actual horse troopers, while rome had 100,000 and only used horseman as patrol.

当60万汉朝军队（大部分实际上是骑兵），遇到10万罗马军团（仅有少量用于巡逻侦查的骑兵），汉朝胜。



#7.

Well best Han China will be the Songs.

Roman are disciplane. China can use rocketries and fire carts to blow at the Romans, first time for Romans to see such fire work! Therefore, away they flee! And Roman cavalries charge and the Hans will charge with Cavalries too (Hans infantries has ordinary armour you can say, but lot other higher rank soldiers got iron breastplates that covers the whole body, and the Romans only got legion armours or even leather. China has an big army in the Medieval times too.

I would say Romans will lose . Just cuz they got nice formations does not mean they got better weapons. We all never seen Romans fighting Han China. So it must be called a match.

But for saying, I vote for China.

汉朝完胜。

当然罗马军团纪律性很强，但不敌汉军的火箭和火牛车。罗马人先是生平第一次看见焰火，然后便四散而逃。双方骑兵同时向对方冲锋（汉朝士兵的盔甲很普通，但是也有着覆盖全身的铁质盔甲的精锐，相反罗马只有军团制式盔甲，有些甚至只穿皮甲）。中世纪的中国拥有一支强大的军队。

罗马会输，阵型漂亮不代表装备精良。当然我们永远不会看到双方真正的战争，这只能算是某一方面的比赛。

要不怎么说我会投票给中国呢。



#8.

Actually, the better battle that illustrates Roman Cavalry weakness is Carrae.

40,000 Roma Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. Point could be said that the Roman commander, Crassus was inept.

实际上卡莱之战更能证明骑兵是罗马的弱势。4万罗马军团士兵，对阵帕提亚1万骑射和1万重装骑兵，罗马溃败。克拉苏作为指挥官实在不给力。



克拉苏(Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives，公元前115年～前53年)，古罗马军事家、政治家。他曾帮助苏拉在内战中夺权建立独裁统治。他通过奴隶贸易，经营矿产，投机地产买卖，及非法夺取其他人的财产等手段积攒万贯家财。前72年至前71年期间，斯巴达克率奴隶爆发起义，克拉苏带领罗马军队残酷镇压。苏拉隐退后，他和庞培、凯撒合作，组成三头政治同盟。 此后他因嫉妒恺撒在高卢所取得的战功，于公元前53年发动了对安息帝国的战争，在卡萊战役中全军覆没，本人也被安息帝国俘虏。 传说安息人是用熔化的黄金灌进他的喉咙里，将他杀死的。



#9.

Both the Romans and Chinese had very good artillery (catapults and ballistas). Romans had superior infantry, especiall heavy infantry, though the Chinese had better missile troops (are you sure that Roman bows outranged Chinese crossbows? Also, Chinese crossbows had a faster rate of fire than European ones of the Middle Ages).

I still think the decisive factor here is cavalry, for cavlary have proved for centuries to be the bane of heavy infantry. Also, the Chinese could field armies of a million troops, while the Romans at their height had 250,000 legionaires and a equal number of auxiliaries.

双方远程机械部队都很强（都装备了弩炮和投石器）。罗马步兵，特别是重装步兵更强，同时中国弩兵更胜一筹（有人确定罗马弓箭射程超过中国的弩吗？虽然我知道和欧洲相比中国的弩拥有更快的射速）

我也觉得骑兵是决定性因素，千百年来已经证明了骑兵是重装步兵的噩梦。而且中国可以把百万军队投入战场，罗马军团在巅峰时期也不过只有25万人，而且很大一部分是辅助部队。



#10.Re:#7.

I don't think gun powder has been invented in that era yet.

火药那时候还没发明呢。



#12.

The Hans didn't have gunpoweder weapons yet. Gunpowder wasn't invented until the Song dynasty. Also, only Chinese officers and commanders wore iron breastplates. The Roman army actually had 500,000 at its height, although during the 3 Kingdoms period China has raised armies of over a million multiple times.

火药是宋朝发明的。装备覆盖全身的铁质盔甲的只是汉朝军队的指挥官。罗马军团巅峰时期有50万人。中国在三国时期兵力才达到百万级。



#13.

At the Roman times, China are beating huns with little bit of helps with rockets.

在古罗马时代，中国打败匈奴靠的可不是什么火箭。



#15.

People say Romans are the strongest empire in the Ancient era. Well, they sure earn a great empire but.. The countries Roman fought has troops that wore no armour, undisciplane men but brave and fierce. Romans often outnumber soldiers from Britannia.

Africa you say? Carthage could have captured Roma. But they lost. Why? Cuz Hannibal must return to protect Carthage

有人说罗马是古代最强大的帝国，恩，我承认他们确实很强大，但是很长时间他们只是同勇猛顽强但是装备破烂且毫无组织性的军队作战，且在数量上保持优势，比如和不列颠人相比。

非洲？迦太基差一点就征服了罗马，但是他们输了。为什么？因为汉尼拔必须回师保卫迦太基的首都。



关于汉尼拔及其远征，不知道的同学自行google



#18.

Pound for pound, the Roman army was the strongest of the Ancient Era. However, Chinese emperors could raise, train, and equip armies of millions of men while the Romans had no more than 500,000 soldiers at their height.

关公战秦琼...罗马军团曾经所向披靡，但是，中国皇帝有上百万人可以武装军队，罗马巅峰时期也不过50万人。



#19.

Maybe Rome had so many inflations.

也许古罗马太自命不凡了。



#20.

Looks like a nice game : http://www.dbaol.com

This game can make Han China versus Roma.

这游戏不错: http://www.dbaol.com，能让汉朝罗马互搏。



#21.Re:#15.

Rome in her time also fought several discipline armies.

1. The armies of Carthage.
2. King Philip V of Macedon's pike Phalanx
3. Seulecids phalanx and Cataphract army

They beat them all.

Although Han unde Wudi destroyed the Huns.

罗马也曾经打败过几支纪律严明的部队。

1.迦太基

2.菲利普五世的马其顿长矛方阵 （第二次马其顿战争）

3.塞琉古长矛方阵和重装部队 （叙利亚战争）

罗马把他们全都打败了，尽管武帝在位时汉朝打败了匈奴。



#22.

most of the 500,000 were auxilaries.

the chinese had impressice formations, and brilliant generals.and ancient china certainly did have a technological advantage.

罗马的50万部队中大部分是辅助军团。中国有令人印象深刻的阵法，出色的将领，而且古代中国有技术上的优势。



#23.Re:#22.

At its height, Rome commanded 30 legions. That is 300,000 professional legionaires.

The Chinese did not have as impressive formations, and both sides had brilliant generals.

Also, the Han only had one technological advantage: the crossbow.

巅峰时期罗马有30个军团，那可以30万职业军团士兵啊。

中国军队的阵法也马马虎虎，出色的将领罗马也有，而且汉朝只有一个技术上的优势：弩。



#24.

and the compass, and the silk trade which rome loved.and they had sun-tsu and his art of war.

指南针，丝绸之路，孙子兵法。



#25.

The compass does not really help in warfare, unless its naval battles. The silk trade wasn't really a technological advantage, it was just a trade route. The Art of War would help the Chinese, but only if their commanders could carry it out correctly.

打起仗来指南针有什么用？除非是海战。丝绸买卖也不能算是技术上的优势吧，只是贸易路线罢了。指挥艺术也许是中国的优势，但也要看中国将领能否正确的运用之。



#26.

compass gets you out of the gobi desert.war with han means no silk trade wich means angry rich romans, which means no money for war.

指南针能让军队通过戈壁沙漠，和汉朝作战意味着没有丝绸可买了，也就意味着愤怒的富人们，也就意味着没有财富能用于战争。



#27.

Yea, I'd say China had better generals.

Han would win because of their crossbowmen and cavalry. Although people, don't forget, the Chinese infantry falters when their general is killed.

中国的将军更出色。

因为拥有弩兵和骑兵，汉朝会赢。虽然在指挥官牺牲之后他们的士兵会有些动摇。



#28.Re:#26.

The Romans brought in wealth from throughout their large empire. The Chinese generated huge amounts of wealth from within their empire. Both sides were wealthy.

罗马从整个广袤的帝国土地上攫取财富，当然中国人也做着同样的事情，两边都很富有。



#29.Re:#27.

Most armies do falter if their general is killed. The Roman Legions might be better off, since they are professional soldiers and not likely to falter as easily.

大多数军队在指挥官战死后都会动摇，罗马军团也许会好一些，因为他们都是职业军人，不会那么容易崩溃。

#30.Re:#29.

Not if we use rocket to scare em ... TOO BAD THERE ISNT THE ROLLING AND LAAUGHING EMOCTION!

他们没有崩溃是因为我们没有用火箭吓唬他们...可惜汉朝时还没有“囧”字！



#31.

Well... I don't think China had rockets during the Han dynasty. Gunpowder wasn't invented until the late Tang, and firearms not until the Song. And let me try this: :rollin 再说一遍...汉朝时还没有火箭，火药是晚唐才出现的，火器装备部队也是宋朝的事了。让我试试能不能打出jiong字。



#32.

well, a roman legion was very well organize, a roman legion was composed of 10 cohort...

the roman also fight in 3 lines, so if the cavalry break the 1st line, the 2nd will always counter-charge. The legionnary was unbeateable on hand-to-hand fighting. It's be pretty interesting a combat between those 2.

罗马军队组织严密，一个军团由10个步兵方阵组成...（以下略去，主要介绍罗马军团构成，这位也是ctrl+v来的，请大家自行google吧。）

罗马军团展开后由条战线构成，即使骑兵冲破了第一线，第二线的士兵也会马上反冲锋。在肉搏战中，罗马军团是不可战胜的。想象双方的战斗一定很有趣。



#33.Re:#32.

Of course, you can use cavalary to attack from the rear, the flanks, or from multiple angles at once. Also, swords are not very effective against cavalry, especially spear-armed cavalry. Also, cavalry archers are very hard to counter with heavy infantry.

骑兵可是会从后方，侧翼等多个角度发起攻击的，而且短剑对付骑兵不是很有效，特别是对付装备了标枪的骑兵。而且重装步兵很难反击骑射部队的攻击。



#34

Han Chinese - Romans

Crossbow - shortbow.

Plate armour - Legion armour.

Millions of soldiers - Thousands.

Allied (With goths, Germans, Brittanias, Vandals...) - Alone...

汉朝 - 罗马

强弩 - 短弓

板甲 - 轻甲

百万级 - 万级

高卢日耳曼不列颠汪达尔都是盟友 - 孤立无援...



#35.Re:#34.

Only a very small fraction of Chinese soldiers had plate armor, while most used armor made from pieces of bamboo and leather. Also, in numbers it will be something around 2,000,000 versus 500,000. And in this discussion, I thought we were excluding allies.

只有极少数汉朝部队装备板甲，大部分盔甲是由竹子和皮革拼接而成。数量上应该是200万对50万，而且在这个讨论里面，联盟不应该成为变量之一。



#36.Re:#34.

why would all those groups be allies with Han? it'll more likely to be free-for-all rather than allies.

anyone know what kind of formations would the Han use?

蛮族怎么就成了汉朝的盟友了？他们应该是第三方实力，有谁知道汉朝有哪些阵法可用？



#37.Re:#35.

Cuz they know its a Empire versus a Empire. They would co-operate with the Han for sure to repel the ROman invaders.

帝国对帝国，蛮族应该会利用和汉朝合作的时机来反抗罗马的侵略。



#38.Re:#35.

Chinese ancient armies uses all kinds of formation depending on the terrain and enemy. There're a series of formations that has from numbers 1-10. For example, Four dragons formation, Three hook, etc etc.

The Han army could just encircle the enemy and shoot it up with missile weapons, and when the enemy's morale is broken (6/10 of the enemies dead) then use the cavalry to charge them.

阵法是死的，人是活的，不同情况，不同对待。一般来说，有按从一到十为序列的阵法可以选择，比如四龙阵，三勾阵等等（- -“）

汉朝军队也许只是包围住敌人，用火箭射射，敌人就崩溃了（阵亡6/10），然后用骑兵冲垮他们。



#39.

For the love of cake not another rome vs china!!! Well heres a simple answer.

Rome went to war with the parthians and the siung niu (middle east Kazakhtan) in the latter parts of the roman empire(100. ad) The romans lost because the Parthians had heavy armored cavalry which dispatched the enemy lines, scattered and confused them. THus making them vulnerable to attack. The roman spear wall became ineffective because of the length of there spears 10 to 15 feet long making them useless in close quarters, if the parthians break through there lines there dead.

A few years later when the parthians were controling the silk road, china was pissed and sent her armies. The chinese having superior tactics and having better weapons (Zhao,Mao tridents) at hand which were more flexible and better than spears 15 feet long and gladius' which were to heavy for a short sword, were more evenly matched against the Parthians.

After some while when the parthians were defeated, the chinese general who sieged the parthians recalled yellow haired barbarians in the parthians troops who used what he defines as a fish scale formation, with shields linked together. He also recalled seeing them used double palisades for defense (No doubt roman).

Before violently reacting to my posts, google the ones below.

My source - Homer Dubbs, historian.
The city of Lee Jien, the lost roman city in china.

老天啊，别再提罗马对阵汉朝了，这里有一个现成的答案。

公元100年左右，罗马与安息发生了战争。罗马败。安息用重装骑兵左右移动，不停调动着罗马军团，以至于军团阵型逐渐分散混乱，安息不断向罗马军团的薄弱位置发起进攻。罗马的长矛盾墙战术无法应付近距离战斗，10到15英尺的长矛无法组成有效的环形防御阵型。一旦被安息人冲破了防线，罗马人死定了。

数年后安息控制了丝绸之路，中国不高兴，派出军队驱逐安息人。中国人在战术及武器上都占有优势。中国人用的枪啊矛啊三叉戟与罗马15英尺长矛和比较沉重的短剑相比，质量更好，灵活性更强，更适合于安息人作战。

交战后不久安息人溃败。中国将领事后回忆，被包围的安息人中有一支“黄毛野蛮人”部队，采用的是他所谓的鱼鳞阵，盾牌与盾牌相连组成盾墙，他还回忆起那些“黄毛野蛮人”部队用双层的木栅栏做防御用（毫无疑问，这个“黄毛野蛮人”部队应该就是安息军中被俘虏的罗马军团士兵）。

有人喷我之前请先google下面这些信息。

德效騫（Homer Dubs），历史学家。骊靬城，中国失落的罗马城市。



首先，此人说法中发生在公元100年左右的罗马安息之战，应该是五贤帝之一的图拉真于公元114--116年对安息的军事讨伐，此役以罗马大胜告终。罗马可能在某场小型战斗中失败，不可考。


汉朝与安息之间，公元前119年，张骞第二次出使西域，联合乌孙共击匈奴。其副使到达安息。据《史记·大宛传》记载，他在安息边界受到热烈欢迎：“安息王令将二万骑迎于东界。东界去王都数千里，行比至，过数十城，人民相属甚多。汉使还，而后发使随汉使来观汉广大，以大鸟卵及黎轩善眩人献于汉？天子大悦”。史籍中并没有汉朝与安息冲突的记载，应该是这位老兄混淆了安息与大宛吧。


此罗马被俘军人流落中国说，最早见牛津大学汉学教授德效騫（Homer Dubs，1892-1969）于1957年发表的的《古代中国的一座罗马城市》一书。公元前53年，就在前文所述的卡莱之战中，虽然罗马战败，克拉苏战死，但其子小克拉苏率领一支罗马军团突围。而据汉书陈汤传中记载，在公元前36年，在一次征讨匈奴郅支城时，俘虏了一支有鱼鳞阵和重木筑城的军队，将其置于骊靬。后世便认为陈汤所俘虏并安置在骊靬的这支军队便是那支失落的罗马军团。


现此说基本已经被推翻，汉代所谓“骊靬”是当时埃及首府亚历山得里亚(Alexandria)的音译。然而，罗马吞并埃及则是公元前30年的事，比陈汤攻杀郅支单于晚了六年。所以，在陈汤同所谓“罗马士兵”作战的时候，亚历山得里亚(骊靬)还不是罗马共和国的一部分。因此，即便陈汤的确俘虏了一些罗马士兵并将他们带回汉朝安置，这些人也显然不会以“骊靬”自称。如果把他们认为是克拉苏东征军团的残部的话，他们早在公元前53年就以失去了同母国 (罗马)之间的联系，又怎么可能预见到二十多年后“骊靬”会成为罗马的领土呢，安置他们的汉朝政府同样也不应该用“骊靬”这个词来指代这些人的母国，从而用其来命名这个为了安置他们而新设立的行政区的名字。且通过对当地人的遗传鉴定后，发现其Y染色体多为东亚本地固有类型，且大部分单倍型和罗马人没有太大关系。



#40.

but if we simplify this into a rock-paper-scissor scenario, we won't know for sure.如果把这个讨论简化为“石头剪刀布”的关系，孰胜孰负未可知否。



#41.

but war is not a game of chance, the out come of one depends on many different factors such as the strategies used, the general commanding the army, the soldiers' morale level, amount of supplies, etc.

战争可不是概率游戏，其取决于战略战术、将领指挥艺术、士兵军纪、后勤补给等多方面因素。



#42.

which means this entire conversation is, well, moot.

也就意味着上面全部讨论，恩，基本上没说出个所以然。



#43.Re:#41.

I beg to differ. In may instances, the outcome of a battle may depend on, well, sheer luck. One lucky spear throw can kill the enemy general, one lucky rainstorm can wet the strings of the enemy crossbowman (as occured in the battle of Crecy). It may be just sheer luck than an army rested for one extra day and avoided an abmush that would've left it to its total destruction.

我不同意，有很多例子证明，战争的胜负往往是看谁的运气更好。掷出的长矛也许就把敌人的将领射死了，一场大雨也许就把十字弩的弩弦淋湿了（英法百年战争中的克雷西会战中就发生了这样的例子）。一支部队多休息了一天，也许就躲过了一场致命的伏击。你说不是运气还是什么呢？



#44.Re:#43.

A good army does not depend on luck, so if it's army is weakened by luck it will not be destroyed. A good army's general always know where the enemy might ambush him and sends scouts forward. I think it depends mostly on the general, and there has been cases in history when an army that was outnumbered by the enemy 10 to 1 won the battle.

一支优秀的军队不是靠天吃饭的，即使运气不在他这边，也不会覆灭。好的将领往往能预测出敌人可能伏击的位置并且派出斥候侦查大军的行军路线。我认为（战争的胜负）基本上取决于将领的能力，也有很多的例子证明以一敌十不是神话。



#45.Re:#44.

Some times they do.

If the Romans had 3000 legions and Han has only 100 guards in a small city.

What if the city is near a cliff, and 2999 Romans sliped and died on accident? Then its 100 on 1 . LOL

不一定。比如说，3000罗马士兵包围了只有100汉朝士兵守卫的小城。如果城池靠近悬崖，2999个罗马倒霉蛋失足落入悬崖摔死了呢？然后罗马人可就是以一敌百了。LOL



#46.

you must be insane, liberator, 2999 died of slipping of a cliff?! if the general is smart, then he might not attack the city directly but rather surround the city and wait the enemies out. the enemy would eventually run out of food and water. see, no casualties.

楼上的不正常了，2999人坠崖摔死？罗马将军如果够机灵，应该围而不攻，等汉朝军队渴死饿死，那就是0伤亡了。



#47.

Rome do have very formidable discipline and tactics. But they do not have monopoly of it.

In han China, crossbowmen are arrange in 3 ranks to alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank -advance). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks.

罗马的军纪和战术都是令人畏惧的，但也不只是罗马。

汉代中国，弩兵分为三个轮次交替射击（第一轮次的射击，最后一轮的装箭，中间一轮的准备）。确保能形成一道连续不断的火力网。弩兵被手持盾牌的重步兵保护着避免遭遇肉搏战。



#48.Re:#46.

I was just showing that battles can be won with luck.

我只是想证明有时候真的能靠运气取胜。



#49.Re:#48.

Well battles can be won with luck, yes, but good generals do not depend on luck. A better example of your example is:

A huge army surrounds a city, the city is outnumbered by a whole lot and have no way of manning the walls sufficiently, so the city's general ordered all the gates to be opened, with only old men sweeping the way by the gate, and the general plays an instrument on the city walls, infront of the enemy army formations. The enemy sees this, and thinks, hm, they are letting us into the city. No, it must be a trap. And the besieging army retreats. Luck? No. Strategy my friend, the city's general, Zhu Ge Liang, knew the besieging army's general's personality pretty well. He also knew that the enemy general is always very suspicious of things. So he knew if he made things look suspicious enough, the enemy will think it's a trap and retreat.

After 2 days the besieging army's general realized he was fooled and attacked the city again. But the city has been abandoned. No one was inside but civilians.

运气能带来胜利这不假，但好的将领绝不相信运气，根据你的假设，我也假设一下。

大军围城，守方兵力连城墙都无法有效防卫。指挥官命令打开所有城门，只让一个老头在门前扫大街，指挥官在城墙上面对敌阵抚琴。敌人想：“呦，这不是引诱我们进城么？一定是陷阱，撤！”运气？不，朋友，这是战略！守方指挥官诸葛亮，摸透了敌人的心理，他知道地方将领谨慎多疑，故意摆下迷魂阵，让敌人认为这是陷阱然后主动撤退。

2天后围城的将领意识到他被愚弄了，回师再次攻城，这时守方已然弃城而走，除了百姓不见一名士兵。



#50.Re:#47.

Wouldn't that mean the crossbowmen would be firing into their own heavy infantry?

用重步兵保护弩兵？那弩箭不都射到自己人身上了。



#50.Re:#48.

But then in the end, you lose the city. :/

归根结底他们还是没有守住城池。



#51.Re:#50.no, silly Fried the heavy infantries would be crouched down while holding their shields (so are the archers that are reloading). the ones that are shooting are standing up so they won't shoot the infantries.

come on, they're common scene in movies

不，当弩兵射击或者装箭的时候，重步兵会举着盾牌蹲下来。射击的人是站着的所以不会射到自己人。

拜托，电影里很常见啊。



#52.Re:#50.

Hey, which one is more important, losing your key and most important and most clever strategist and general of your country, or losing a city? In those days cities were constantly taken and lost, so it's no biggie.

哪一个更重要？失去你最关键最重要最具战略性眼光的将领，还是失掉一座城池？那个年代一座城池反反复复易手很正常，不算什么。



#53.Re:#47.

watch "Hero" when those crossbow mens assult that sword trainning place

想到了电影《英雄》里弩兵齐射的场景。



#54.Re:#51.

Aha! Thank you, Punisher, I am enligthened!

谢谢51楼的，受教了！

矮人布鲁诺

#55.

Don't they use a line of pikemen infront of musketeers in the 15th 16th (or whatever) centuries to protect the musketeers from cavalry charges? That is, until the bayonet was invented.

在15、16世纪（谁知道呢），不是用一排长矛兵保护身后的滑膛枪手的吗？直到刺刀出现。



#56.Re:#55.

That was used in Europe. The Dutch also developed a tactic using a combination of a sort of mobile phalanx like formation for their pikeman with companies of musketeers. The musketeers would fire at the enemy from a range, while the formations of pikeman would close in on the enemy once the enemy gets within close range.

那是曾经的欧洲，德国佬还发明了一种战术，让长矛兵和滑膛枪手组成一种运动阵型，距离适中时滑膛枪手射击，一旦敌人接近，长矛兵就上去一阵乱捅。



#57.Re:#12.

Gunpowder was invented during the eastern Han dynasty. But, it was only used as fireworks. The first time it was used in battles was during the Song dynasty.

火药在东汉就发明了，不过只是用于烟火，首次用于军事是宋朝时发生的。



#58.

I think Rome may have superior training and discipline for its troops. It also has contacted many other parts of the world. China, on the other hand, has fewer contact with other nations.

我认为罗马军队的训练和士气更佳，而且和世界其他地区的接触也更广泛。反观中国，几乎不怎么和其他国家接触。



#59.

the rome and the hans all shall one enemy: the Huns. from what i've learned, the huns almost destoried the rome while the hans have managed to keep them out of its boarder.

罗马和汉朝有一个共同的敌人：匈族人。反正我是这么学的：被汉朝赶跑的匈族人毁灭了罗马。（正如前文所说，我个人认为不应该把汉朝与罗马的实力对比简单地归结的到一个剪刀石头布的模型中。）



#60.

That's what I was thinking. Many historians think what we Chinese call the Xiong Nu barbarians are Huns. China eventually driven them further West.

应该是这样，很多历史学家认为我们中国人所称的匈奴人就是西方所称的“匈族人”，实际上是中国把他们赶到的西方。



#61.

The following are a chinese crossbow from the Qin dynasty era, which existed before the Han dynasty. It has a range of around 300 meters if shot in the proper trajectory and can have a rate of fire of up to 7 bolts per minute when used by a trained crossbowmen. It easily out-ranges most bows at the time, but has a somewhat slow firing rate.

Tips of bolts are in a thin triangular shape in order to provide the best aerodynamic performance. Of course during that age there is no such a subject as aerodynamics but we can conclude that the Qin army adapted this shape from experiences on the battlefield.

下面是几张秦弩的图，比汉弩存在的还早。如果让一个训练有素的弩兵操作，调整好轨道射程能达到300米，射速每分钟7箭。射程轻易超过当时大多数的弓，但是射速较低。

为了符合空气动力学，箭头是细长的三角形。当然那个时代没有所谓的“空气动力学”，但是我们可以推测秦朝之所以使用这个形状的箭头是由于战场上的经验。



#62.

The dimension of the Qin crossbow. I am using this as an example because Han crossbow evolved from this design.

这是秦弩的尺寸，因为和汉弩相似，我就拿来做例子了。



#63.

Now on to weapons of the Roman legions.

My personal favourite melee weapon, the Roman Gladius. It is a short sword designed to be used as a stabbing weapon during close combat. Roman legionnaires can safely launch their attack behind their large rectangular shields. Stabbing weapons have been proven to be more effective in combat that slashing or crushing ones. However, the downside is its length.

Despite the impression of many, Roman ballista does not actually fire bolts but rather stones. Crafted out of wood, ropes and animal sinew, it fires a stone the size of a human fist to a distance of 600 feet. These can be found at nearly all ancient roman forts and strongholds, however, there are very few instances where they were carried to field battles on record.

下面是罗马军团的武器。

我个人最爱的近战武器：罗马短剑。短是为了方便在近战中刺伤对方。罗马人可以躲在巨型方盾后安全的攻击，对于他们来说刺杀型武器在肉搏在中应该比砍杀型武器和碾压型武器更有效，当然了，太短了也不好。

印象当中，罗马的弩炮更多的是投掷石块而不是燃烧的弩箭，用木材、绳子和动物肌腱制作而成的罗马弩炮如果投掷一个拳头大小的石块，射程可达600英尺。这很多古罗马防御要塞都有发现。然而，没有什么例子能证明在野外阵地作战的时候罗马人也会使用弩炮。



#64.Re:#63.

BTW way, The Roman Gladius (gladius mean short word in latin) is a copy of the Iberian sword used by the Spanish and by Carthage.

顺便说一下，罗马短剑是仿西班牙人和迦太基人使用的伊比利亚剑而成的。



#65.

I don't like Gladius. Too short.

不喜欢罗马短剑，太短。



#66.Re:#65.

That why it was so deadly....

In the Gaulic wars, the Gaul had the big 3 ft sword, the Romans rushed them and with their sheild the gauls long sword became a liability. The Gauls did not have enough room to weild them.

短才致命。

在高卢战争中，高卢人用的是3英尺长的大剑，当罗马人举着盾牌冲向他们的时候，根本没有挥舞空间的大剑毫无优势可言。



#67.Re:#65.

yea, you like the sword of William Wallace, don't you?

恩，你肯定喜欢《勇敢的心》里面那样的长剑，对吧？



#68.

I know short swords are deadly when 2 men are closed up.

But I still perfer a longsword, or better (2 handed).. .

我知道2个人面对面的时候短剑更致命。

但我还是喜欢长剑，双手持的更好...



#69.Re:#66.

That, I know.

我也知道。



#70.

I think a shorter sword can also be swung faster

越短的剑挥舞起来越快。



#71.Re:#70.

Of course! Its light and easy to wield. Good with a shield.

当然了，因为轻便么，配合盾使用效果很好。



#72.

The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive; where the Chinese had better generals for knowing the art of war.(Was it out yet? Or were the generals just as............never mind, the Three Kingdoms haven't come yet, the Chinese generals were just as aggressive.......)

The Chinese had better missile weapons.(Just look at that crossbow, sweeeeeeeeet... Best shape I can think of) But did it penetrated the shields? And can the Chinese swords break the shields? If not, the Chinese are doomed.

And there is still the Pylum(Don't know how to spell it), but I doubt those will do much.

Then there is the numerical superioirty the Chinese had.

As for swords, the Romans had the edge. Long swords gave worse blows, but it didn't have a high RoF. The short sword, however, can be easily moved, manuvered, very good with shields as one said.

罗马的将军们常常被荣誉驱使，更有进攻性。与之相比中国将军因为其深谙指挥艺术而更胜一筹。（汉朝是这样吗？无所谓，反正三国时期还没到来呢，也许汉朝将军也和罗马将军一样更富进攻性吧）

中国的投射武器更强（看看那个弩吧，sweeeeeeeeet ，我能想到的最好的造型了）。但是它能穿透盾牌吗？中国人用的剑能击碎罗马人的盾牌吗？如果都不行，那么中国人要完蛋了。

当然罗马也有特制的标枪，不过不知道能发挥多少作用。

中国的优势屈指可数，比如说到剑,罗马人便占先机。长剑砍得很痛快，但是发率太慢了。短剑速度快，易挥舞，就像某人说的，和盾牌配合效果很好。



#73.

Art of War is most definally already been written when Han dyansty has began. Three Kingdoms has nothing to do with SunTuz: Art of war. During "Spring & Autumn" and the Warring States, there has been hundreds of different school of thoughts and a lot of them have works on military planing.

When you say "The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive" thats true, and chinese generals are just like that. It doesnt matter how good of a strategist they are, and romans had great military strategist as well. But if you read what i posted in the thread about "best dyanstic military". It is not because of strategies that Han will defeat Rome but because of men power and technonlogy. Han has the most advenced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dyansty time. And Han have much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations. I used the Huns as an example. Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road", after that the Huns  through europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.

大多数兵法在汉朝以前就写成了，三国时代和孙子兵法没有任何关系。在春秋战国时期的诸子百家,其中大多数都包含军事思想。

你说的“罗马的将军们常常被荣誉驱使，更有进攻性”没错。中国将军也一样，他们的战术素养有多高无关紧要，罗马也不差。但是如果你读过我之前发过的帖子“最强军事王朝”，你就会发现汉朝之所以能打败罗马不是因为战术，而是因为人力和技术。汉朝有当时最先进的攻城和远程投掷武器，罗马在汉时代没有可移动的攻城器。骑兵也是突破罗马防线的杀手锏。我用匈族人举一个例子：汉朝为了保护丝绸之路把他们从中国的西部赶了出来，然后匈族人就肆虐欧洲了。如果阿提拉没死，罗马就处于战败的边缘了。



阿提拉（Attila，406年—453年），古代欧亚大陆匈人最伟大的领袖和皇帝，史学家称之为“上帝之鞭”。与中国历史上北魏太武帝拓跋焘同时的人物。他曾率领军队两次入侵巴尔干半岛，包围君士坦丁堡；亦曾远征至高卢（今法国）的奥尔良地区，最后终于在沙隆之战被停止了向西进军。然而后来他却攻向意大利，并于公元452年把当时西罗马帝国首都拉文纳攻陷，赶走了皇帝瓦伦丁尼安三世，使西罗马帝国名存实亡。



#74.Re:#73.

Yeah, but Rome was at the verge of collapse when the Huns arrive in Europe.

Has there been studies that shows if the Han Crossbow can penetrate the Roman tower sheild

是啊，但是当匈族人到达欧洲的时候罗马帝国已经处于崩溃的边缘了。

有没有关于汉弩是否能穿透方盾的研究？



#75.Re:#74.

Roman rectangular shields are fairly thin to my suprise when I saw a replicated one in Seattle (around 1cm). However, their curved surface are excellent at deflecting blows from melee weapons. The thing weights about 20 or 25 pounds with brass carrying handle. Roman legionnaries can safely use their stabbing sword while staying behind the safety of their shields.

Back to the question of Han dynasty crossbow. Studies conducted in China have shown that the crossbow can effectively pierce through two layers of steel plate both 5mm thick at the range of 150 meters. That kind of penetration is only achieved with the British yew longbow. So the answer to the question is yes. However the romans fielded another type of round buckler made of iron at the time which the crossbow may not have enough power to penetrate through. The downside of the iron buckler is its relatively small surface area(around 20cm in ) and it is not widely used by the Roman army.

当我在西雅图见到一个罗马方形盾的复制品的时候，不敢相信它是那么的薄（大约1厘米厚）。虽然如此，它的弧形表面在遭到攻击的时候能让近战武器偏出。那玩意算上黄铜质的把手大约20-25磅重。军团士兵能安全地躲在盾牌后面挥舞他们的短刃。

回到你关于汉弩的问题。在中国的研究表明汉弩在150米的射程能有效地穿过双层5毫米厚的铁板。其穿透性达到了英国紫杉长弓的水平。所以答案是肯定。但是也许汉弩不能轻易地穿过另一种罗马军队装备的圆盾，这种铁质圆盾的缺点是覆盖面比较小（半径大约20厘米），罗马军队没有广泛的装备。



#76.

Isn't this sort of like CSM v SM warfare? =).

Actually, I'm told the Romans have better morale, their troops are "harder". They're very muscular from heavy road work, and their society glorifies the martial virtues(Rome only got to where it was by conquering its neighbors, it was not innately an economic power).

The Chinese general has to be very careful. If he screws up or dies, the entire Chinese army will break and get decimated. As long as this scenario does not occur, the Han can exploit their technological and doctrinal advantages.

By the way, what's the history of siege crossbows? You know, the leg powered artillery crossbow? The first time I've encountered those were when I watched the movie "Hero", they don't seem to pop up a lot in the popular culture.

是不是就像战锤40K里面的星际战士VS混沌星际战士一样？

实际上，罗马人的精神信念更顽强，他们的队伍更有“棱角”。他们有通过繁重的体力劳动练就的肌肉，他们的社会对尚武精神更加推崇（罗马人只愿意踏上已经被自己征服了的土地，他们的扩张不是因为经济实力）。

另外，攻城弩的由来谁知道？就是那种靠双腿力量上弦的弩，我第一次见识这玩意是在电影《英雄》里，这种发射方式在流行文化里不太常见。



战锤40K，最著名的桌面战棋游戏，看得起，买不起。



#77.Re:#76.

The Qin got to where it was from conquering its neighbors.The Han under Wudi conquered and destroyed the Xiongnu (huns) and broke their hold on Northwestern China.

The Chinese military expedition under Ban Chao, with 70,000 men, reached all the way to the Caspian sea in 97 AD. The Parthians seek an alliance with them because they were being conquered by the Romans under Trajan. When the Roman's conquered the Parthian capital of Csitephon (sp), they were within 1 day march from Ban Chao's border outpost. After Trajan's death, the Romans withdraw...so did Ban Chao.

秦朝也是靠征服邻国实现其扩张的。武帝时代的汉朝征服了匈奴，把他们赶到了中国的西北方向。

公元97年，一支7万人的远征军在班超的带领下甚至到达了里海。为了反击图拉真率领的罗马军队，安息向汉朝寻求结盟。当罗马人占领安息首都斯宾的时候，大军距班超的边界观察哨只有一天的路程。图拉真死后，罗马人撤退，班超也撤军了。



#78.

Chinese military history is filled with turn and flee actions.

中国的军事史充满了溃败。



#79.Re:#72.

Wow Sumdud. You are a square. First off- you wrote rate of fire as RoF. Secondly, what kind of douche bag would apply the term rate of fire to a sword!?!?

72楼的你就是一土鳖，把“发射速率”简写成“发率”。哪种傻X会用“发射速率”表明一把剑的好坏？



#80.

Well, long sword are much more deadly at arms-length, and short swords are very useful if you want to get intimate with your opponent. That way the Japanese samuri carrys 2 katanas most of the time, one long katana to attack and a short katana to defend and attack at short range.

长剑在一定的距离范围内更致命，如果你想和你的对手贴身肉搏，那就用短剑吧。看看一直带着两把长刀的日本武士，长的长刀用于进攻，短的长刀用于短距离上的攻防。

矮人布鲁诺

#81.

I would say that overall. Han China can win.

Reasons.

China has an army that can overpower the Romans in great numbers. China can supply all these soldiers with either scale or plate armours. While the romans can only supply up to tens of thousands with scale, chain mail and legion armours.

Chinese weapons include crossbow or maybe early Chu Ko Nu(s). A crossbow can pierce a thick wooden shield, and can also pierce metal armours and metal shields. Roman soldiers' ranged weapons are javelims, pilums, and short bow. (Slings???).

War machines used by the Romans are balistas that fires bolts -OR- rocks. For China, there are enlarged crossbows and bows that need 2 or more soldiers to fire. China also have stone throwers.

To against the Roman turtle formations, China soldiers can use fire arrows, or crossbows to pierce their shields.

Chinese shields are also big too! Some shields have a tiger or dragon symbols on them, which are rectangle.

Well, horses. Rome ALONE has less horse than China.

从总体上来说，我认为汉朝会赢。

理由：

数量上中国军队远远超过罗马。中国能为士兵提供鳞甲或板甲。罗马至多能提供几万套鳞甲锁甲或者军团制式盔甲。

中国军队装备着弩，甚至是早期的弩枪（诸葛连弩），弩箭能穿透厚重的木盾，也能穿过金属铠甲或者金属盾牌。罗马人只是装备着短矛、特制标枪和短弓（也许还有投石器？）

战争机械方面，罗马有能弹射弩箭或者石块的弹射器。中国可是有需要2个或者更多士兵操作的加强版的弩和弓，还有投石车。

面对罗马龟形盾牌阵，中国士兵只要向他们发射点燃的弓箭或者用弩穿透他们的盾牌就可以了。

汉朝有更多的马。



#82.Re:#80.

Short Katana?????? Learn the Japanese swords.

-Japanese long sword = Katana.
-Japanese short sword = Wakisashi.

By the way, Katana and Wakisashi makes me sick.

I think Katana can break when against a European 2 handed sword. BIG TIME!

短的长刀？多了解了解日本武士刀吧。

长的叫“Katana”，短的叫“Wakisashi”，可不是什么短的长刀。

另外，武士刀让我恶心。

武士刀碰上欧洲双手剑，武士刀完败，巅峰时刻！



#83.

Katana is for fighting in 2 hands when encounters an enemy. Good for slash and chop, and well, stabbing.

Wakizashi or Wakisashi is good when you need your other hand to wield a weapon, Wakizashi is used when enemies is very near you. Better than Katana when stabbing.

Katana and Wakizashi in a Han Chinese versus Roman section???

在遭遇到敌人的时候武士长刀是双手持的，能劈能砍，穿刺能力也不错。

当你的一只手已经装备了武器，武士短刀是一个好的选择，尤其在近身的情况下，穿刺能力优于长刀。



#84.Re:#82.

They make me sick too.

So we have heard about a lot of the Han equipment, what of the Romans? How will the Han formation fare against pilums thrown at them, possibly killing many? (since they wear scale armor, and assuming the Romans could get close enough to use their pilums) How about siegecraft, How will Chinese cities fare against Roman sieges and Roman cities fare against a Chinese army? I think the Chinese would have an advantage in siegecraft, I'm not sure if mongonels were invented at this time, but to my knowledge Chinese architects built siege engines very suitable and powerful for siegecraft.

武士刀我也不喜欢。

我们已经讨论了一大堆汉朝的装备了，说说罗马的怎么样？当汉朝的军阵面对罗马特制标枪的攻击时会发生什么？（假设他们身穿鳞甲且已经进入标枪的射程）。双方各自的城墙能否承受住对方攻城器的进攻？我知道汉朝在攻城器械方面有优势，我不知道当时有没有投石车，不过汉朝设计的攻城器械确实好用。



#85.

I thought the katana and wakibasih were Japanese. Why are we talking about them? The katana is supposed to have a molecular blade, and both Japanese swords are made with highly advance metallugury skills. The Japanese learned their metallgury skills from the Chinese, who also made very good swords, just in different styles and designs. Europe didnt' have metallgury technology until long after the Chinese started using it.

我想武士刀既然是从日本来的，我们为什么要讨论他们？武士刀就像光剑一样锋利，所有的日本刀都采用先进的萃取技术冶炼而成。当然，这个技术是从中国学习来的。中国人造的剑同样出色，只不过2者的造型设计不同罢了。直到中国掌握萃取技术很久之后欧洲才学会它。



#86.Re:#84.

I think Chinese siege weapons are better. Roman balistas cannot destroy Chinese walls (If you see how think Chinese walls are).

Pilums, I heard they are very good. But how can they be strong when people use arms to throw spears?

中国的攻城器械更好，罗马的弹射装置奈何不了中国的城墙（只要你见过中国的城墙有多厚就明白了）。

特制标枪，听说很好用，但是都是靠胳膊投掷出去的，又能强多少呢？



#87.

I don't know how thick Roman walls are, but Chinese walls, from what I've seen, are extremely thick.

Xi'an's city walls are about 5-10m x 5-10m, thickness and height. I've visited that city in such a long time ago I don't remember.

我不知道罗马的城墙有多厚，但是我知道中国的城墙非常厚。

西安城的城墙大约是5-10米高，厚度也差不多。我很久以前曾经去过那里旅游。



#88.

ppl go watch da opening battle scene in da movie gladiater...really good movie

人们应该瞧瞧角斗士里面那个野战滴场景...好电影



#89.Re:#86.

Well, the Roman dosen't just have ballistas, their also have a catapult (the latin name is : onager, onagri) That was good in siege and could break thick wall, the Romans used to launched 20-35 pounds rock with their onagers.

The pilum, ah, that was a great weapon, think as a militarised version of the javelin used in athletism, the light one could be pitched up to 50m and the heavy is up to 35m, the heavy stay stuck in the whatever they hit and i think that moving with a 2,1m pilum in your shield or armor is not so great, assuming you're still in shape to fight... also the heavy pilum got this special handle fix that cover permit legionnary to uncover the opponent shield. When the pilum hit something, the tip stay stuck, and the rear, with an ingenious system of hinge, will be on the ground, the legionnary only have to step on this part that is on the ground and the shiled will be pulled, uncovering the target !!

罗马不仅有弹射装置，也有抛射装置。在攻城时面对厚厚的城墙威力很大，罗马人曾经抛射过20-35磅重的石块。

特制标枪，恩，伟大的武器。就像田径比赛中使用的标枪的军用版。轻型的能掷50米远，重型的能掷35米远。重型标枪无论击中什么都会插得紧紧的。我想你的盔甲或盾牌上如果插着一个1，2米长的标枪，再想移动就不是那么容易了，假设你还能动的话...

特制标枪还有一个特别的固定装置，能让军团士兵掀翻敌人的盾牌。当标枪刺中某物，尖部插进去，后部通过一个巧妙转动装置指向地面（个人理解：投掷前的标枪是笔直的，击中物体后，标枪中部的木质或者皮质固定装置受震动断开，后部通过滑轮或滚轴向下接触地面，这时候的标枪呈钝角三角形）。军团士兵只要像接触地面的那部分标枪踩上去，盾牌就会从目标身边被拉开掀翻！！



#90.Re:#89.

I know how they use the pilums, but how would the Chinese army fair against it?

我知道特制标枪的原理。问题是中国军队如何正面应对它的进攻？



#91.Re:#90.

Well, It's easy to get close enough to use their pilum, advance in tortudoes to protect from the crossbow and reploy in the 3-lines formations after, it's would easily pierce the Chinese Armor, the light pilum, of 750-900g can kill anykind of lightly or unarmored trooper, the 1,5kg heavy pilum can even pierce the heaviest armor. And BTW, for chinese assieging Roman, roman did some great fortification too, don't underestimated them...

当罗马人迂回前进躲避开弩箭的攻击，并且展开三线阵型后，敌人很容易进入特制标枪的射程。轻型标枪，大约750-900克，能轻易穿透中国军队的盔甲，杀人任何的轻装步兵。1.5千克重的重型标枪甚至能穿透最后的盔甲。还有，当中国人包围罗马人的时候，罗马人的防御工事很出色，别低估这一点。



#92.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but crossbow bolts went straight through any armour that wasn't plate, and could even pierce that when fired accurately enough.

Pilums didn't work against the Huns, and they wouldn't work against the Han either. Especially not against a complete mobile army like the Han were.

不好意思我想提醒你一点，弩箭能轻易穿透所有非板甲类的盔甲，如果射得好的话甚至能穿透板甲。

特制标枪不能击败匈族人，同样也不能击败汉人，尤其考虑到汉朝军队拥有出色的运动能力。



#93.Re:#92.

well, the roman curved shield offer much more protection that you can even think about it in this time and their armor was good to, the roman "armora locata" was better than the heavy chainmails used century later by knight, pilum don't work against anykind of cavalry, don't forget that, and the Huns were only cavalry, not the Han army...

罗马的弧面盾牌在当时能提供远远超过你想象的保护。他们的盔甲同样出色。罗马盔甲对于要害位置的保护甚至优于后世骑士们穿着的重型锁子甲。特制标枪面对骑兵确实很无力，但是别忘了，匈族人都是骑兵，汉朝军队可不同...



#94.Re:#89.

Catapults, yes yes. I know Roman uses it.

Roman soldiers are disciplane. And they've got nice shield. I read on books saying that China got some good formations too with good shields.

抛射装置，对，对，我知道罗马有这些东西。

罗马士兵纪律性强，装备着优质盾牌。可是书上说中国军队也可以用优质盾牌组成厉害的阵型。



#95.Re:#92.

I would say crossbow bolts can pierce plates, but not thick ones.

I agree with you on the pilum thingy. Chinese soldiers does have formations but when attacking, soldiers will just go anywhere on the battlefield hacking and slashing, I personally do not think Pilum will be any use.

我认为弩箭可以穿透板甲，也许太厚的不行。

关于特制标枪很无力的观点我同意。中国军队当然也有所谓“阵型”的概念，但当真正发起攻击的时候，士兵会随意出击寻找目标。我个人觉得标枪没有什么用。



#96.Re:#93.

Don't forget it was the Han cavalry who drove the Huns from their capital.

别忘了正是汉朝的骑兵把匈奴的骑兵赶出了他们的首都。



#97.Re:#96.

Han cavlarymen were drawn from Chinese living on the frontiers. They had to fight the Huns constantly, and also lived a similiar nomadic lifestyle revolving around the horse. Chinese cavalry were of high quality, not much different from the Hunnish cavlary. They fought with composite bows, spears, and swords/shields.

汉朝骑兵是从生活在边疆的百姓中挑选出的。他们不得不经常和匈奴作战。生活方式也和游牧民族相似——以马为中心。中国骑兵部队质量很高，和匈奴没有什么不同。他们装备着复合弓、长矛、剑和盾牌。



#98.Re:#97.

i understand this point but the Han army was not only cavalry...

我明白这些，但是汉朝军队不完全是骑兵组成的吧...



#99.Re:#98.

But they had enough to destroy the Roman legions!

那也足够打垮罗马军团了！



#100.Re:#99.

At their apogy, the Roman Empire got a total of 24 legions, 16 cohorts in Rome (10 Praetorian and 6 Urban) and 122 cohort of legionnary garrison in cities. That mean aproximatly 208,920 men ready to fight. If all the units are destroyed, the conscription of citizen is an option...

巅峰时期，罗马帝国有24个军团，有16个步兵大队（大约300-600人）驻守在罗马（10个作为禁卫军，6个作为城市卫戍），还有大约122个步兵大队驻守在其他城市，那就是总共大约208920名士兵准备好去战斗。即使全军覆没，还可以从市民中征兵...



#101.Re:#100.

That was about one fifth the size of Han Imperial army. At its height Han empire fielded 15 hundred thousand cavalry. Both in terms of numbers and weapon production capacity, Rome is left sucking dust.

这只是汉朝军队规模的1/5，巅峰时期，汉朝拥有大约150万名骑兵，无论是数量上还是武器生产能力上，罗马肯定一败涂地。



#102.

I would love to see a Chinese epic movie around this time period but without the fantastical martial arts.

They could have a movie about the first emperor and shows the ancient chinese armies in all its glory.

我很想看一部展现真实历史而非充满奇幻元素的中国史诗电影。

他们应该制作一部关于秦始皇的电影，展现古代中国军队的风采。



#103.

Hi

When we talk about the Romans are we using the Western European meaning
for the term or the one used by the rest of the world ?

hi,我们平时说到的罗马人，只是西欧意义上的罗马人吗？还是所有罗马统治范围内的自由民？



#104.

We're talking about the Roman Empire which ruled most of Europe for centuries, then collapsed due to low birth rates, bad emperors and stifling bearocracy.

我们说的是那个曾经统治欧洲数个世纪，然后因为生育率过低而崩溃的罗马帝国。混蛋皇帝以及死气沉沉的官僚体系。



#105.

every major dynasty in the world had the last two problems, it's just not possible to have a good beauacracy for long, those breaucrats always find it way to screw it up. and there's always a few bad empires in the family. remember that the last roman dynasty was the Antonines or Five good emperors, which means they don't pass the title emperor to their sons, but proven capable men to run the country, such as Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. then the roman empire got screwed over by marcus aurelius's son, because Marcus had the bright idea of passing the power to his son instead of following tradition. btw for those of you who loves gladiator, the general did die in the arena, but the emperor didn't, he died like 5 years later.

历史上每个主要的王朝都至少有两大问题。政府机构很难在长时间内都保持良性运转，官吏们总是能把事情搞砸。罗马帝国最后的王朝是安东尼时代，也叫做五贤帝时代，皇帝们不是把皇位传给子孙而是其他有能力治理国家的人，比如哈德良和马可·奥里略。然后罗马帝国就毁在了
马可·奥里略的儿子手里，他想出了一个“高明”的点子，改禅位为继位。另外，喜欢看角斗士的人注意了，主角确是死在了竞技场，那位皇帝可没有，他五年后才挂的。



角斗士中的老皇帝便是五贤帝中的最后一位“哲学皇帝”马可·奥里略。温爱看的《沉思录》就是他写的。马可·奥里略死后，儿子康茂德继位，成为罗马近100年来第一个“生而为帝者”。马可.奥勒留万万没有想到，康茂德会成为和尼禄、卡里古拉、图密善齐名的暴君，罗马帝国也由此从全盛进入衰败。

主角马克西穆斯确实是一位受人爱戴的将军，他受到老皇帝马可·奥里略信任，但史料中并无其被陷害后成为一名角斗士并展开复仇的记载，康茂德继位后杀了大量元老院的人，其中就包括马克西穆斯。

康茂德确实酷爱角斗，但并非死在了角斗场，是被情妇喂以毒药然后被职业摔跤手掐死的。



#123.

Romans could not solve a problem which is after the sword queeches, the iron sword became really soft, could be snapped easyily. therefore romans had short swords instead of long swords, (otherwise, snap... )

But Han had some technology, such as tempering and Point hardening, which was very helpful. Chinese solders could have a iron sword around 60-80 cm long, and it is the best length for fighting.

Also the Hardness of Romans weapons were around 100-400 HV (normally, short sword was around 200 something, the hardest was a knife, aroudn 700 HV.

people found some iron sword during the Warring states, the hardness up to 560 HV
Hardness of Qin's bronze Sword were around 150-300 Hv
Hardness of Han's iron Sword were around 500-1200 Hv.

And i can tell u guys what kind of tactics did huns use to aginst Roman's and Han'
They fire lots of the arrows to the air, therefore Romans use their shield to guard top of themself. at same time some Huns fire horizontally. Then use cavalry to RUSH to the Romans.

But Han's had a weapon called wu gang che. 6 metre long, 4.2 m wide (might be smaller. ) pikes were in the front of it and big shield on the top and sides, and also, it can carry a few crossbow man as well.
In the battles, Han placed Wu gang che in a circle or build a defense line,Use crossbow man to defend and cavalary rushed to Huns base camp.

Crossbow man had different version of croosbow as well. They are called one shi, 2 shi up to 10 shi. ( one shi equals to the force is need to left up around a mass of 30 Kg )
from range of 300- 800 meters.

罗马人在萃取方面遇到了技术问题，以至于铁质刀剑变得很软，非常容易断掉，这才是罗马用短刃代替长剑的原因。

但是汉朝有温度控制和硬化剂添加方面的技术，这对于制作武器非常有用。汉朝士兵的剑一般在60-80厘米之间，这个长度最适合作战。

罗马的武器硬度大概在100-400HV（一般短剑在200HV左右，最坚硬的如匕首之类，大概在700HV）。

人们发现了一些战国时期的铁质刀剑，硬度超过560HV。

秦朝铜剑硬度大概在150-300HV之间。

汉代铁剑硬度大概在500-1200HV之间。

我再告诉各位匈奴究竟是用何种战术来对付罗马和汉朝。

他们会向天空中射出大量的箭矢（！！！让箭以抛物线轨迹进行攻击），罗马人不得不用盾牌从上方进行防御。但有时匈奴人也会向水平方向射击，然后用骑兵冲击敌人。

但是汉朝有一种叫做武刚车的装备。6米长，4.2米宽（也许更小）。长矛捆在车前，四周立上坚固的盾牌，而且能乘上不少弩兵。

战斗中，汉军让几辆武刚车做环形防卫，或者用很多武刚车组成防御阵线。用弩兵进行防御，然后派突骑攻击敌人主帐。

汉朝弩兵有不同型号的弩可供选择。从一石弩、二石弩以此类推到十石弩。（张弓引满一石的弩，相当提起约30千克重物所用的力。）射程能在300-800米之间。



HV,维氏硬度，以120kg以内的载荷和顶角为136°的金刚石方形锥压入器压入材料表面，用材料压痕凹坑的表面积除以载荷值，即为维氏硬度值(HV)。

武刚车是中国古代的一种兵车，是载兵的车辆，用于陆上战斗。据古籍吴 孙《兵法》云：“有巾有盖，谓之武刚车”。武刚车长二丈，阔一丈四，车外侧绑长矛，内侧置大盾。《史记·卫将军骠骑列传》：“於是大将军（ 卫青 ）令武刚车自环为营，而纵五千骑往当 匈奴 。”《后汉书·舆服志上》：“ 吴 孙 《兵法》云：‘有巾有盖，谓之武刚车。’武刚车者，为先驱。又为属车轻车，为后殿焉。”三国时诸葛亮的八卦车法，就是用战车阻击骑兵的战法。他创造的运粮用的木牛、流马就是武钢车的演化。东晋时马隆就靠八卦阵法和战车，打败了游牧民族羌人的入侵。

据汉简和古文献记载，汉弩的强度都要经过严格校验，汉弩分1、3、4、5、6、7、8、10石诸种。其中10石弩又称为大黄弩、黄肩弩或大黄力弩，强度最大，射程可达约400米。这就是说，要拉开大黄弩上弦，需要5、6百斤的力量。 这么大强度的弩机，普通兵士是很难单独完成上弩、进弩和发弩的全过程的，所以汉代最常用的弩机是六石弩，其张力为3、4百斤，射程约240米。 汉朝名将李广于公元前121年与匈奴作战时，在众寡悬殊的情况下，以大黄弩射杀对方将领而扭转战局。汉朝郡国还组成了以弩手为主的步兵兵团，其指挥员的官号有的就称“强弩将军”。



#124.

Han Chinese - Missile weapons. Good cavalries, armours for every soldier, overwhelming numbers, smart and strategic generals.

Romans - Great formations and disciplane soldiers. Dunno more.

汉朝-强弩，优秀的骑兵，每个士兵装备有盔甲，数量上的优势，机智且有战略眼光的将领。

罗马-优秀的阵型，纪律性强的士兵。



#125.Re:#124.

Rome had discipline professional soldiers, career generals, and the best heavy infantry in the world at that time.

In order to beat them, the Parthians use their composite bows and refrain from closing in on them. Once the legionaries got you within melee, they will most likely have won.

罗马有专业士兵，职业将军，以及当时世界上最好的重步兵。

为了打败他们，帕提亚人不得不使用复合弓来避免和他们近距离接触。一旦重步兵和你近距离肉搏，他们就已经取得了胜利。



#126.Re:#125.

Yeah, they are soo good in fighting barbarians without good armour and with lower pop...

是啊，他们在对付赤膊上阵的没有文化的野蛮人的时候表现得非常优秀。






秦時明月漢時關


萬里長征人未還


但使龍城飛將在


不教胡馬度陰山

我叫飞飞

原谅我是个门外汉... 不懂不懂

语·紫英

这讨论到世界末日都无法分出结果.
军事理论方面中国肯定领先.外国的身体和力量上能赢.
古代打仗绝不是电视上哪样互冲到对方人群.都是摆阵型.互冲就是找死.傻子才干.除非糟遇战
我觉得直肠子的外国人弄不过心机重的中国人.

東莪'

我特讨厌军事呀什么的打仗什么的。。。
然后我特悲剧的遇上军人，我嘞个去。。。。。

酒杯

一对一的话，罗马应该比较厉害，抛开什么武功来说，罗马人高马大，力量占优，不过也要看角色了，要是让一个一米九的汉朝兵拿着大刀去K一个一米六的罗马兵，结果就不一定了啊。装备嘛，彼此彼此。也许罗马的剑比较锋利些，不过汉朝兵的刀也厚实。


二队二的话，罗马什么样的配合我不清楚，汉朝的话，盾兵在前，枪兵在后，由于不知道那时候罗马是什么样的，所以结果还不明。


遭遇战，混战的话，看心理，气势了，乱不乱是一回事，有目标就好，个人看好汉朝，毕竟后面还有放冷箭的。


不管如何，还是看战争的形势了，谁侵略谁呢，毕竟在装备差距不大的情况下，守住一个城池在上面放箭，泼油总比，暴露着心理有些忐忑的攻城好。而且远距离的攻略，如果罗马到汉朝，供给不足的话，到了别人的地盘，只有在地上画圈圈的份了。当然，如果人家早已经打入城内，里应外合那就另当别论了。


那时候的两个国家战争的话，很难，很远，估计打一两场还是在别的国家，嘿嘿。我也不懂，瞎说几句。

我叫飞飞

一对一的话，罗马应该比较厉害，抛开什么武功来说，罗马人高马大，力量占优，不过也要看角色了，要是让一个 ...
酒杯 发表于 2011-2-16 16:07

    酒杯。请教你一个问题。他们到底在讲些什么。

酒杯

回复 8# 我叫飞飞


    我哪知道他们在讲什么

我叫飞飞

回复  我叫飞飞


    我哪知道他们在讲什么
酒杯 发表于 2011-2-16 16:32

    昨晚那个脑袋有问题的男人是不是你的小号。如实招来