Im surprised at the great ignorance exposed hereto and I would gladly step in to enlighten some members on a few facts.
"Yes, the Han did have a military that's at least as big as and as well-armed as the Romans. However the Roman legions were wholly professional and well-paid whereas the Han soldiery were conscripts mostly with some detachments of elite troops. "
Sorry but thats a gross understatement that any detailed analysis and field testing have disproved. With the exception of armour, all fields of Chinese military science was vastly ahead. The classical west used the torsion type of catapult while its the east that first introduced the swave type(trebuchet) generating far more power. And here is a comparison bewteen the ancient Chinese siege and artillery with that of the classical west in which it show clearly that the classical Greco Roman catapult and artillery was vastly inferior to that of the East Asian ones in both the ballista as well as the stone launcher. The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had a average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards. Not to mention the vastly simpler design of the eastern ballista that makes it the more efficient. While the sling and torsion catapults(onagers used mainly for sieges threw stones of roughly 50 pounds and maximum some 175 pounds on occasinal cases never more than 160 yards. The ancient eastern manned trebuchet was light years ahead sending missiles up to 275 pounds from 80-190 yards as max. while the fixed counterweight had a somewhat heavier missile and longer range on average but was merely a improvment on the normal trebuchet and has many set backs just like the arbalest is to the normal hand primed crossbows. All this is not including the other forms of field artillery in china not seen in the west. This include the Lien nu or multipul firing bolts, this is rarely seen on western fields and only in occasion which merely two bolts were delivered at once opposed to the vastly more numbers in the asian form that could deliver up to 10 at once. Second is the Zhuang zi nu which has a number of spring constant which could impart their stored energy to the same projectile giving far greater damage. This type was never used in the west. This is accompanied by the powerful hand crossbow of the eastwhich has range of 800 meter and more piercing power than any misile in classical Europe, and only spread to Europe during the centuries that folowed while even the composite bow itself was more developed in the east. The bone hardening in the side and center of the composite bow developed in the 2nd century giving greater range and poewr over the old Scythian type of bow.
Here is a quote from Needham's book on chinese missiles and siege. "At the conclusion of this section we shall have something to say about the comparison between Chinese and European military history. Military teoreticians have found it possible to make distinction between periods when the main emphasis is on the shock of troops in hand to hand, and other periods when the main emphasis is on throwing of a cloud of projectile weapons....In armoured or shock periods, reliance is placed on massed advance and hope of individual soldier is that their armour will protect him while his weapon will injure others. In unarmoured or projectileperiods dependence is placed on mobility and firepower, while hope of individual soldier is that the projectile he fires will hit others but that he will be avoid those fired by them....In china neither the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies....Chinese soldiers are primarily archers, and mounted more often than on foot.....It can hardly have been a coincidence that when a new propulsive forcewas discovered astonishingly more powerful than the bent spring of bows, it was China that it received all the most brilliant adaptations of youth, and there that it reached such maturity as to spread rapidly over the rest of the civilised world."
It indicate that China's missile is so far in advance that the western method of heavy armament and shock as dominant weapon over missiles never took place in chinese warfare because they are vulnerable to the powerful missiles. And the close formation and heavy armament would just be a hinderance against these.
Study of crossbows exacavated from the terracotta warrior confirm that the bolts of these powerful weapons could rip straight through a Roman scutum. A more straight quote from Short History of the Chinese people P.30 by Goodrich as follows The most powerful military weapon was the crossbow, long the Chinese soldiers major means of attack Its darts easily pierced the shields of the well armed Roman legionnaires. You can find a similar quote in the series, Ancient Civilization: China. According to a more potent source, History of military and warfare it states, the Roman legions lost the battle of Sogdiana because of the Han soldiers superior weapons. I would gladly give more detail of the Battle of Sogdiana, (assumed by many to be the only battle between Romans and Han troops) if any of you want to know more about it.
The Roman military at its height under Trajan had roughly 350,000 troops, the Han conscription soldier number roughly achieved 1 million for the most part. (Everyday life in Imperial China by Michael Loewe p.84). Second I would like to emphasize on one important factor, which you ignored. Professional army has both its strength and weakness. Its strength lies in its efficiency in border conflict, its weakness lies in its lack of ability to control by the central power. This is the reason the Romans adopted cavalry by the end of the 2nd century A.D.. Professional troops are not foreign to Han, The Han dynasty did have a professional capital force called the Northern Barrack. But the emperor preferred conscripts for most of the troops because its easier to control. Had the emperor so wished a large professional force would be gathered without difficulty as done during the Kai Yuan era of the Tang.
The reason for the larger amount of troop is because of the vast superiority in agriculture on the part of China.Many historians in the past think that the "hundreds of thousand" of army in the warring states are exaggerations and only thousands of troops are gathered since the contemporary western armies could only have several ten thousand in most battles. However not long ago, study of chinese agriculture shows that this was possible and the sources recorded probably the truth. Chinese agriculture are far more developed than in any other place. Until the 17th century, productivity in European agriculture was severely limited by the inefficiency of ploughing, sowing, and hoeing methods. The 17th to 19th centuries saw a transformation of North European agricultural technology, basedon the development of the turn-plough with curved iron mould-board, the seed drill and the horse-shoe, all of which has been around in the central plain at least as early as the western Han. Jethro Hull was the first European explicitly to formulate this integral system of 'horse hoeing husbandry' in 1731, yet an agricultural system incorporating all the same very elements had existed in North China since Han times, while individual elementsof the system were to be found in several other parts of East Asia. The multi harvest system in China is also far ahead for its time. The Chinese plow concentrated the force much more efficiently on the sharp blade of the plow, with the mould-board designed to turn the soil with a minimum of drag. With the European plow, the entire straight wooden mould-board pushed against the soil. Therefore, the Chinese plow achieved a far higher energy-flux density, and accomplished far more work with far less effort. Chinese plows were so efficient, that they required only one or two animals to pull them. Four, six, or even eight draft animals were needed to pull the inefficient European plow. The Chinese plow was vastly more efficient than the European plow, both per worker and per unit of energy used. As LaRouche states, ``This difference is Leibniz's definition of the subject matter of technology.'' This method was so inefficient that most of the seeds never germinated to produce a crop. The plants also grew up in a disorganized mess. Weeding the fields was impossible, so the plants were left to compete with the weeds until harvesting season. This considerably reduced the crop. In Europe, it was often necessary to save one-half of the harvest to use as seeds the next year.
By no later than the Sixth Century B.C., the Chinese adopted the practice of growing crops in evenly spaced rows, and using a hoe to remove the weeds. ``Master Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals,'' states ``If the crops are grown in rows they will mature rapidly because they will not interfere with each other's growth.
At first, the seeds were placed by hand in furrows, in a ridge-and-furrow pattern. Around the Second Century B.C., the Chinese introduced the seed drill, which became almost universally used in northern China. This device consisted of small plows that cut small furroughs in the ground, a mechanism that released the seeds, evenly spaced into these furrows, and a brush or roller that covered the seeds with dirt. The seed drill could be adjusted for different types of soil and seeds. This method of planting was so much more efficient than sowing the seed by scattering it, that it could achieve an efficiency 10 or even 30 times greater.
It should be easy to see that the difference in productivity between Chinese and European agriculture was dramatic. The area of land that could be brought under cultivation in Europe was constricted by inferior technology, and by the need to leave more land as pasture to feed the extra draft animals. Obviously, we are comparing two large areas, over a long period of time. However, Chinese yields have been estimated at two, five, or even ten times higher than yields in Europe, at various times. China's higher yields allowed for an increased population density, and also for an increased division of labor, as we will see below.
Eventually these technologies were transmitted to Europe, which led to a large increase in agricultural production. European travelers were greatly impressed with the wealth of China, and the productivity of its agriculture. Leibniz and others actively sought out information on Chinese science, industry and agriculture from Europeans who traveled to China.
The Chinese plow and seed drill were introduced into Europe during the 17th Century, and gradually adopted throughout Europe. Growing crops in rows was championed by British agricultural reformer, Jethro Tull, who printed a treatise in 1731, to persuade farmers to adopt what he called ``horse-hoeing husbandry.'' Tull published arguments similar to those used 2000 years earlier in China. Tull also developed one of the first successful European seed drills.
In comparison, historians found that in China during the Qin, one pound of seed could have 10 times the amount of harvest in return, while in contemporary classical Europe that same amount of seed could only have 2.5 amount of harvest in return. In another word, Qin could have 4 times the amount of harvest with the same amount of seed put into the agriculture. This enable the Qin to feed a much larger army. All these advances in agricultuer undoubly created a increase in living standard and the living standard in the central plain at this time was greatly more than that of Europe.
Your argument of Han conscript is interesting but devoid of analitical depth, Chinese mettarugy was vastly ahead that of Roman, thus their weaponry was vastly superior.
By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products.
The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. The use of cast iron was, unfortunately, introduced in Europe largely for the production of cannon; Henry VII constructed the first blast furnaces in England. The replacement of the bloom furnace with the blast furnace, increased productivity in the English iron industry 15-fold.
The Chinese were able to manufacture superior tools, that the more primitive European metallurgy was incapable of producing, which led to a substantial advance in productivity throughout the entire economy. As early as the Third Century B.C., the state of Qin appointed government officials to supervise the iron industry, and penalize manufacturers who produced substandard products. The Han Dynasty nationalized all cast-iron manufacture in 119 B.C. Around that time, there were 46 imperial Iron Casting Bureaus throughout the country, with government officials insuring that cast-iron tools were widely available. This included cast-iron plowshares, iron hoes, iron knives, axes, chisels, saws and awls, cast-iron pots, and even toys.
The Chinese also developed methods for the manufacture of steel that were only matched in the West, in the recent period. The characteristics of iron alloys are related to the carbon content. Cast iron generally has a high carbon content, which makes it strong, but brittle. Steel, which is an alloy of iron with a low carbon content, is strong and more durable. The use of steel in agricultural implements was introduced, on a wide scale, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). This led to a further improvement in productivity.
In the Second Century B.C., the Chinese developed what became known in the West as the Bessemer process. They developed a method for converting cast iron into steel, by blowing air on the molten metal, which reduced the carbon content. In 1845, William Kelly brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky, and learned this method from them, for which he received an American patent. However, he went bankrupt, and his claims were made over to the German, Bessemer, who had also developed a similar process.
As early as the Fourth Century A.D., coal was used in China, in place of charcoal, as fuel to heat iron to rework the raw iron into finished products. Although sources on the use of coal in the Song Dynasty (960-1279 A.D.) are limited, the Chinese are reported to have developed the ability to use coal in the smelting of iron by the Ninth Century.
"Yes, the Han did have a military that's at least as big as and as well-armed as the Romans. However the Roman legions were wholly professional and well-paid whereas the Han soldiery were conscripts mostly with some detachments of elite troops. "
Sorry but thats a gross understatement that any detailed analysis and field testing have disproved. With the exception of armour, all fields of Chinese military science was vastly ahead. The classical west used the torsion type of catapult while its the east that first introduced the swave type(trebuchet) generating far more power. And here is a comparison bewteen the ancient Chinese siege and artillery with that of the classical west in which it show clearly that the classical Greco Roman catapult and artillery was vastly inferior to that of the East Asian ones in both the ballista as well as the stone launcher. The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had a average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards. Not to mention the vastly simpler design of the eastern ballista that makes it the more efficient. While the sling and torsion catapults(onagers used mainly for sieges threw stones of roughly 50 pounds and maximum some 175 pounds on occasinal cases never more than 160 yards. The ancient eastern manned trebuchet was light years ahead sending missiles up to 275 pounds from 80-190 yards as max. while the fixed counterweight had a somewhat heavier missile and longer range on average but was merely a improvment on the normal trebuchet and has many set backs just like the arbalest is to the normal hand primed crossbows. All this is not including the other forms of field artillery in china not seen in the west. This include the Lien nu or multipul firing bolts, this is rarely seen on western fields and only in occasion which merely two bolts were delivered at once opposed to the vastly more numbers in the asian form that could deliver up to 10 at once. Second is the Zhuang zi nu which has a number of spring constant which could impart their stored energy to the same projectile giving far greater damage. This type was never used in the west. This is accompanied by the powerful hand crossbow of the eastwhich has range of 800 meter and more piercing power than any misile in classical Europe, and only spread to Europe during the centuries that folowed while even the composite bow itself was more developed in the east. The bone hardening in the side and center of the composite bow developed in the 2nd century giving greater range and poewr over the old Scythian type of bow.
Here is a quote from Needham's book on chinese missiles and siege. "At the conclusion of this section we shall have something to say about the comparison between Chinese and European military history. Military teoreticians have found it possible to make distinction between periods when the main emphasis is on the shock of troops in hand to hand, and other periods when the main emphasis is on throwing of a cloud of projectile weapons....In armoured or shock periods, reliance is placed on massed advance and hope of individual soldier is that their armour will protect him while his weapon will injure others. In unarmoured or projectileperiods dependence is placed on mobility and firepower, while hope of individual soldier is that the projectile he fires will hit others but that he will be avoid those fired by them....In china neither the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies....Chinese soldiers are primarily archers, and mounted more often than on foot.....It can hardly have been a coincidence that when a new propulsive forcewas discovered astonishingly more powerful than the bent spring of bows, it was China that it received all the most brilliant adaptations of youth, and there that it reached such maturity as to spread rapidly over the rest of the civilised world."
It indicate that China's missile is so far in advance that the western method of heavy armament and shock as dominant weapon over missiles never took place in chinese warfare because they are vulnerable to the powerful missiles. And the close formation and heavy armament would just be a hinderance against these.
Study of crossbows exacavated from the terracotta warrior confirm that the bolts of these powerful weapons could rip straight through a Roman scutum. A more straight quote from Short History of the Chinese people P.30 by Goodrich as follows The most powerful military weapon was the crossbow, long the Chinese soldiers major means of attack Its darts easily pierced the shields of the well armed Roman legionnaires. You can find a similar quote in the series, Ancient Civilization: China. According to a more potent source, History of military and warfare it states, the Roman legions lost the battle of Sogdiana because of the Han soldiers superior weapons. I would gladly give more detail of the Battle of Sogdiana, (assumed by many to be the only battle between Romans and Han troops) if any of you want to know more about it.
The Roman military at its height under Trajan had roughly 350,000 troops, the Han conscription soldier number roughly achieved 1 million for the most part. (Everyday life in Imperial China by Michael Loewe p.84). Second I would like to emphasize on one important factor, which you ignored. Professional army has both its strength and weakness. Its strength lies in its efficiency in border conflict, its weakness lies in its lack of ability to control by the central power. This is the reason the Romans adopted cavalry by the end of the 2nd century A.D.. Professional troops are not foreign to Han, The Han dynasty did have a professional capital force called the Northern Barrack. But the emperor preferred conscripts for most of the troops because its easier to control. Had the emperor so wished a large professional force would be gathered without difficulty as done during the Kai Yuan era of the Tang.
The reason for the larger amount of troop is because of the vast superiority in agriculture on the part of China.Many historians in the past think that the "hundreds of thousand" of army in the warring states are exaggerations and only thousands of troops are gathered since the contemporary western armies could only have several ten thousand in most battles. However not long ago, study of chinese agriculture shows that this was possible and the sources recorded probably the truth. Chinese agriculture are far more developed than in any other place. Until the 17th century, productivity in European agriculture was severely limited by the inefficiency of ploughing, sowing, and hoeing methods. The 17th to 19th centuries saw a transformation of North European agricultural technology, basedon the development of the turn-plough with curved iron mould-board, the seed drill and the horse-shoe, all of which has been around in the central plain at least as early as the western Han. Jethro Hull was the first European explicitly to formulate this integral system of 'horse hoeing husbandry' in 1731, yet an agricultural system incorporating all the same very elements had existed in North China since Han times, while individual elementsof the system were to be found in several other parts of East Asia. The multi harvest system in China is also far ahead for its time. The Chinese plow concentrated the force much more efficiently on the sharp blade of the plow, with the mould-board designed to turn the soil with a minimum of drag. With the European plow, the entire straight wooden mould-board pushed against the soil. Therefore, the Chinese plow achieved a far higher energy-flux density, and accomplished far more work with far less effort. Chinese plows were so efficient, that they required only one or two animals to pull them. Four, six, or even eight draft animals were needed to pull the inefficient European plow. The Chinese plow was vastly more efficient than the European plow, both per worker and per unit of energy used. As LaRouche states, ``This difference is Leibniz's definition of the subject matter of technology.'' This method was so inefficient that most of the seeds never germinated to produce a crop. The plants also grew up in a disorganized mess. Weeding the fields was impossible, so the plants were left to compete with the weeds until harvesting season. This considerably reduced the crop. In Europe, it was often necessary to save one-half of the harvest to use as seeds the next year.
By no later than the Sixth Century B.C., the Chinese adopted the practice of growing crops in evenly spaced rows, and using a hoe to remove the weeds. ``Master Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals,'' states ``If the crops are grown in rows they will mature rapidly because they will not interfere with each other's growth.
At first, the seeds were placed by hand in furrows, in a ridge-and-furrow pattern. Around the Second Century B.C., the Chinese introduced the seed drill, which became almost universally used in northern China. This device consisted of small plows that cut small furroughs in the ground, a mechanism that released the seeds, evenly spaced into these furrows, and a brush or roller that covered the seeds with dirt. The seed drill could be adjusted for different types of soil and seeds. This method of planting was so much more efficient than sowing the seed by scattering it, that it could achieve an efficiency 10 or even 30 times greater.
It should be easy to see that the difference in productivity between Chinese and European agriculture was dramatic. The area of land that could be brought under cultivation in Europe was constricted by inferior technology, and by the need to leave more land as pasture to feed the extra draft animals. Obviously, we are comparing two large areas, over a long period of time. However, Chinese yields have been estimated at two, five, or even ten times higher than yields in Europe, at various times. China's higher yields allowed for an increased population density, and also for an increased division of labor, as we will see below.
Eventually these technologies were transmitted to Europe, which led to a large increase in agricultural production. European travelers were greatly impressed with the wealth of China, and the productivity of its agriculture. Leibniz and others actively sought out information on Chinese science, industry and agriculture from Europeans who traveled to China.
The Chinese plow and seed drill were introduced into Europe during the 17th Century, and gradually adopted throughout Europe. Growing crops in rows was championed by British agricultural reformer, Jethro Tull, who printed a treatise in 1731, to persuade farmers to adopt what he called ``horse-hoeing husbandry.'' Tull published arguments similar to those used 2000 years earlier in China. Tull also developed one of the first successful European seed drills.
In comparison, historians found that in China during the Qin, one pound of seed could have 10 times the amount of harvest in return, while in contemporary classical Europe that same amount of seed could only have 2.5 amount of harvest in return. In another word, Qin could have 4 times the amount of harvest with the same amount of seed put into the agriculture. This enable the Qin to feed a much larger army. All these advances in agricultuer undoubly created a increase in living standard and the living standard in the central plain at this time was greatly more than that of Europe.
Your argument of Han conscript is interesting but devoid of analitical depth, Chinese mettarugy was vastly ahead that of Roman, thus their weaponry was vastly superior.
By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products.
The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. The use of cast iron was, unfortunately, introduced in Europe largely for the production of cannon; Henry VII constructed the first blast furnaces in England. The replacement of the bloom furnace with the blast furnace, increased productivity in the English iron industry 15-fold.
The Chinese were able to manufacture superior tools, that the more primitive European metallurgy was incapable of producing, which led to a substantial advance in productivity throughout the entire economy. As early as the Third Century B.C., the state of Qin appointed government officials to supervise the iron industry, and penalize manufacturers who produced substandard products. The Han Dynasty nationalized all cast-iron manufacture in 119 B.C. Around that time, there were 46 imperial Iron Casting Bureaus throughout the country, with government officials insuring that cast-iron tools were widely available. This included cast-iron plowshares, iron hoes, iron knives, axes, chisels, saws and awls, cast-iron pots, and even toys.
The Chinese also developed methods for the manufacture of steel that were only matched in the West, in the recent period. The characteristics of iron alloys are related to the carbon content. Cast iron generally has a high carbon content, which makes it strong, but brittle. Steel, which is an alloy of iron with a low carbon content, is strong and more durable. The use of steel in agricultural implements was introduced, on a wide scale, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). This led to a further improvement in productivity.
In the Second Century B.C., the Chinese developed what became known in the West as the Bessemer process. They developed a method for converting cast iron into steel, by blowing air on the molten metal, which reduced the carbon content. In 1845, William Kelly brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky, and learned this method from them, for which he received an American patent. However, he went bankrupt, and his claims were made over to the German, Bessemer, who had also developed a similar process.
As early as the Fourth Century A.D., coal was used in China, in place of charcoal, as fuel to heat iron to rework the raw iron into finished products. Although sources on the use of coal in the Song Dynasty (960-1279 A.D.) are limited, the Chinese are reported to have developed the ability to use coal in the smelting of iron by the Ninth Century.
And why how did you drag up this ancient thread?
Your posts are so informative, a bump of an old thread is ok. 
I knew that the Han army was one million, but I didn't know how the Chinese revolutionized farming! 
