Best ancient army organization?

[marathag]

True, the Mediterranean was larger, but to my knowledge, it was far easier to navigate, far less dangerous than the Sea of Japan, and had greater material rewards. The Mediterranean was a closed off, relatively calm lake while the Sea of Japan was... an open, deep-water sea.

Todays wind and tide forecast
Sea of Japan
15 kt. Average wind, gust to 20, waves 5ft average 6ft peak
East China Sea
7 kts wind, gust 9, 3 ft average wave 3 ft peaK
East Med
24 kts wind, gust 33, 10 ft wave 13 ft peak
West Med
13 kts wind, gust 18, 7 ft wave, 9 ft peak.

Yep, super smooth in the Med vs those rough seas off China and Japan

 

[Monter]

Why is China not conquering Japan even an issue there? Outside of the Mongol attempts China never once considered invade the islands.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Todays wind and tide forecast
Sea of Japan
15 kt. Average wind, gust to 20, waves 5ft average 6ft peak
East China Sea
7 kts wind, gust 9, 3 ft average wave 3 ft peaK
East Med
24 kts wind, gust 33, 10 ft wave 13 ft peak
West Med
13 kts wind, gust 18, 7 ft wave, 9 ft peak.

Yep, super smooth in the Med vs those rough seas off China and Japan

Not that I particularly care about the argument over which sea is stormier, but what on earth is a daily forecast supposed to prove? If it was hotter today in Quebec than in England would that prove that Canada is a warmer country than Britain?

 

[FranzAncheNo]

Organization and logistics?
I don't know who's the best, but I've heard about a guy from Macedonia and his buddies going all the way from Greece to India.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Actually, you touched an important issue. The question was about the legions acting against the “horse archers” (as I said, the term is pretty much meaningless). As you hopefully agree, the horse archers are pretty useless in defending the city walls because their strength is on an open terrain (as at Carrhae). OTOH, the Romans had been very good in a siege warfare (the same goes for the Mongols after they absorbed Chinese experience but this is besides the point). So the Romans would have certain strategic advantages against civilization which is already sedentary and has important cities but still has a warfare with a strong emphasis on acavalry: by taking the critical cities Romans potentially may force opponent to negotiate on the terms favorable to the Romans.

True, but presumably if the Romans were unable to deal with horse archers the Parthians would have just met them in battle and routed them long before they reached the Parthian capital. As for the Mongols, it's true that the Romans would find it much harder to force them to give battle due to the lack of any fixed cities to defend, and so the Mongols would be able to just keep retreating, harrying Roman detachments, and wait for their enemies to run out of food. But I think this is a general feature of sedentary vs. nomadic warfare, and not a sign that the Roman way of war was inherently incapable of fighting horse archers.

 

[bernardz]

Stirrup was not a miracle resolving all problems and even at th best times the Roman cavalry was not powerful enough to act alone against somebody like the Mongols. So, outside the battlefield it would be pretty much useless and on a battlefield it would not be able to get too far from the infantry either.

What I am pointing out is that the Romans would have much they would learn from the Mongols, Romans were quick military adopters but the Mongols would have much less they could learn from the Romans.

 

[sloreck]

From an organization standpoint, I'd have to go with the Romans. Excellent engineering, logistics, and even medical system (given the limits of medicine in those days). Obviously a Roman legion on the Steppe against Mongol horsemen is going to have problems. The key for nomadic warriors against somebody like the Romans is can they destroy/take their bases. IMHO the Romans did well against all comers when well led, and not out too far on a limb where they could be cut off from the base of supply or caught by larger numbers in terrain that was unsuitable (think Teutonberger Wald). again from an organizational standpoint I'd have to say the Romans, that doesn't mean tactically or even strategically they would always win.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Why is China not conquering Japan even an issue there? Outside of the Mongol attempts China never once considered invade the islands.

The matter was brought up in responce to someone bringing up that the Han's overland campaigns carried them far further than any Roman overland campaign. And on that point, I think it's worth noting that, just as the Chinese had no reason to campaign across the Sea of Japan where as the Romans had reason the cross the Med, the Romans had no need to campaign across the Sahara whereas the Han had plenty of need to cross the Gobi.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Romans captured Ctesiphon like three or four times during the Parthian period

Weren't all of those instances a result of them attacking while the Parthian king (and with him, the Empire's primary fighting force) was tied down with rebellions/conflicts elsewhere?

 

[marathag]

Not that I particularly care about the argument over which sea is stormier, but what on earth is a daily forecast supposed to prove? If it was hotter today in Quebec than in England would that prove that Canada is a warmer country than Britain?

Feel free to average out a whole month for all three locations to back up, that the seas around China are far rougher. That claim was made, so back it up.

I just used today because that's easy to find online.

 

[marathag]

Why is China not conquering Japan even an issue there? Outside of the Mongol attempts China never once considered invade the islands.

Because while China had awesome logistics and military potential on land, they were not able to project power across a sea.

That's important for the original question of best organization for an army. Not being willing or even able to support an Army across a shore, is something to pay attention to.

Saying the Chinese just didn't feel like it, still knocks them down a step or two in this 'Top Trumps' thead.

Seas were the real highways of the ancient world, and the Han Chinese were unwilling to use them, for whatever reason, be it lack of desire or just unable to, is something to take note of.

Mongols saw the value of a Navy, and their riverine force was to take note of. Wasn't just the ponies that got the Mongol victory over the Songs.

They had the largest Navy in the World in the 13thC.

 

[Hegemon]

Feel free to average out a whole month for all three locations to back up, that the seas around China are far rougher. That claim was made, so back it up.

I just used today because that's easy to find online.

I admit, I made a claim that I cannot back up. I wrongly assumed that, because the East China Sea and Sea of Japan have until recent years had more sporadic contact than societies around the Mediterranean, that the seas must be intrinsically harder to navigate. Perhaps so, perhaps not. However, as others pointed out, whether the Seas of China and Japan are harder to navigate than the Mediterranean doesn’t necessarily prove or disprove the superiority of logistics of one civilization or another.

 

[CeeJay]

Because while China had awesome logistics and military potential on land, they were not able to project power across a sea.

First, it helps if there is some compelling reason to cross the sea. The Romans didn't cross the Oceanus Germanicus or the Mare Suebicum in any major way, not because they couldn't have done so but because there was little there at the time to compel the trip.

Second (bracketing out of course the spectacular example of Zheng He, which I suppose counts as early modern), the Chinese frequently projected power by sea to theaters that were actually relevant and in close contact, in particular Southeast Asia and Korea, numerous times over the centuries.

Third, the Chinese developed riverine navies to an extreme degree of sophistication precisely because those were the kinds of navies most relevant to the core of their domain. Some of the most famous battles in Chinese history involved massive river navy clashes (Cf. The Battles of Jongxia and Red Cliffs during the later Han). The Mongols would most certainly have needed such navies to conquer the Song, but they didn't show up from out of the blue with them. They had to use existing Chinese naval technology (EDIT: and personnel, I should have said), just as they did for trying to project power by sea.

All of which makes it rather dubious to try talking about how the Chinese somehow were not supposed to have had or valued navies.

Finally, trying to talk up the Mongols as superior naval tacticians is nuts. All of the Mongol attempts to project power by sea from China were disasters. Every single one of them. There were plenty of Chinese dynasties that successfully projected sea power, but the Yuan Dynasty was simply not among them.

 

[marathag]

If the Mongol Navy was crap, why didn't the Song fleet crush them?

 

[CeeJay]

Political infighting in the Song dynasty had a great deal to do with its defeat IIRC. There's more to warfare than raw tactics (although there were some key Song tactical errors in certain battles as well). In any case there really was no "Mongol Navy." The Mongols had to impress local Chinese navies to fight for them, which is why the campaign to conquer southern China was the most gruelling of any of their conquests (bar none AFAIK) despite Song dysfunction.

IOW they didn't romp to victory with superior naval power, they succeeded because of their other military virtues -- in particular their relative operational unity -- despite the lack of it. And even those advantages couldn't carry them over the top when they tried to project power overseas.

 

[BellaGerant]

If the Mongol Navy was crap, why didn't the Song fleet crush them?

River fleets are not sea fleets (as the Mongols learned when their river boats sank off the coast of Japan).

Because while China had awesome logistics and military potential on land, they were not able to project power across a sea.

That's important for the original question of best organization for an army. Not being willing or even able to support an Army across a shore, is something to pay attention to.

Saying the Chinese just didn't feel like it, still knocks them down a step or two in this 'Top Trumps' thead.

Seas were the real highways of the ancient world, and the Han Chinese were unwilling to use them, for whatever reason, be it lack of desire or just unable to, is something to take note of.

Mongols saw the value of a Navy, and their riverine force was to take note of. Wasn't just the ponies that got the Mongol victory over the Songs.

They had the largest Navy in the World in the 13thC.

Well, the Tang did project across the Yellow Sea during the Goguryeo-Tang War, beating the Baekje-Yamato forces (which in turn eliminated official Japanese presence on the mainland for the next 1000 years) and the Ming supported the numerically disadvantaged Joseon fleet in the Imjin War against Japan. The Chinese did make use of their navy to great effect when it was in their interests; Japan and Taiwan were just never seen as worth the effort for most of history (not profitable, not a threat, not civilised enough to bother with).

 

[alexmilman]

True, but presumably if the Romans were unable to deal with horse archers the Parthians would have just met them in battle and routed them long before they reached the Parthian capital. As for the Mongols, it's true that the Romans would find it much harder to force them to give battle due to the lack of any fixed cities to defend, and so the Mongols would be able to just keep retreating, harrying Roman detachments, and wait for their enemies to run out of food. But I think this is a general feature of sedentary vs. nomadic warfare, and not a sign that the Roman way of war was inherently incapable of fighting horse archers.

I did not say that the Romans could not deal with “horse archers” because the term is too vague to make practical sense. In the case of Parthians there was one famous case when they deployed a successful tactics: pinned the Romans down in a middle of nowhere and kept shooting at them (using supply of the new arrows). The rest was up to the circumstances including leadership quality on both sides, terrain, Roman supply situation, etc.

The Parthian experience was used only as an answer to the statement implying that the Romans were always successful against the horse archers. The Mongols were not a direct analog of the Parthians, Huns, Magyars, or any other “horse archers” because all of them had been different and the Mongols had been by far the most successful of the bunch. Basically, you are repeating the same mistake as the Russian princes before Kalka: when the scouts reported that the Mongols are the horse archers “like Polovtsy” it was decided that to deal with them would be as easy as with Polovtsy, hence a rash advance into the Steppe with the known result.

So the statement that the Romans could deal with some horse archers is pretty much meaningless in the context of this specific discussion.

 

[alexmilman]

What I am pointing out is that the Romans would have much they would learn from the Mongols, Romans were quick military adopters but the Mongols would have much less they could learn from the Romans.

They learned what they really needed (siegecraft) from the Chinese and learning about the stirrups would not change Roman cavalry into an invincible force: pretty much all Mongolian opponents had been using stirrups. It is pretty much the same as a myth of the Mongolian bows as a miracle weapon.
The Mongols had little to learn from the Romans but they could learn a lot about them and use that knowledge to adjust their tactics and strategy accordingly.

 

[Workable Goblin]

The Parthian experience was used only as an answer to the statement implying that the Romans were always successful against the horse archers.

Hardly; the statement only implied that the Romans were often successful against horse archers, which is true. They lost some, of course, they won some, and they won more often than they lost.

The Mongols were not a direct analog of the Parthians, Huns, Magyars, or any other “horse archers” because all of them had been different and the Mongols had been by far the most successful of the bunch...So the statement that the Romans could deal with some horse archers is pretty much meaningless in the context of this specific discussion.

It's quite meaningful, because it shows that the Romans were not, as a simplistic analysis might assume, totally helpless in fighting with steppe armies using steppe tactics and approaches. Even if different steppe groups were, of course, not the same, there was still a general similarity between them that can be used to suggest the probability of two widely separated groups being able to successfully defeat each other. If the Romans suffered a Carrhae every time they went up against the Parthians or Sassanids, much less the Huns, Magyars, and other steppe groups, that would suggest that the Mongols would easily dispose of them, for example. But in fact the Romans did win a number of battles against armies with general similarities to the Mongols, which instead suggests that the Romans wouldn't be helpless. Would they necessarily win, no, of course not, but they would have a chance without having to invoke outrageous luck.

 

[alexmilman]

Hardly; the statement only implied that the Romans were often successful against horse archers, which is true. They lost some, of course, they won some, and they won more often than they lost.


It's quite meaningful, because it shows that the Romans were not, as a simplistic analysis might assume, totally helpless in fighting with steppe armies using steppe tactics and approaches. Even if different steppe groups were, of course, not the same, there was still a general similarity between them that can be used to suggest the probability of two widely separated groups being able to successfully defeat each other. If the Romans suffered a Carrhae every time they went up against the Parthians or Sassanids, much less the Huns, Magyars, and other steppe groups, that would suggest that the Mongols would easily dispose of them, for example. But in fact the Romans did win a number of battles against armies with general similarities to the Mongols, which instead suggests that the Romans wouldn't be helpless. Would they necessarily win, no, of course not, but they would have a chance without having to invoke outrageous luck.

I have no idea how did you come to the notion of helplessness or to the statement that they were losing every time so you are arguing with yourself.

Of course, the classic Romans never went against the Magyars by the reason which should be obvious and did not deal too much with the “steppe groups” to which Sassanids hardly belonged. A fact that warfare of some culture was dominated by the cavalry does not automatically makes that culture nomadic or “steppe group” and even does not automatically makes it the “horse archers” (khazars were predominantly a heavy armored cavalry). And describing Mongols as just “horse archers” is simplistic all the way to a complete meaninglessness.

Carrhae is important only because it demonstrated tactics by which cavalry based army can defeat a good infantry army, that’s pretty much it.

As I keep repeating, it does not make sense to bundle the nomads into a single group because their “general similarity” mostly amounted to the fact that all of them had been fighting on a horseback. The differences between the Huns and Mongols were profound and even the difference between the Mongols and their contemporaries, Kumans, was critical for one side to lose and for other to win.