Let's Talk History!
This discussion was created from comments split from: Spears and Shields.
This is an interesting discussion and I wanna continue it, but I don't want to derail @Fiendish_Warrior 's original thread even more.
This is an interesting discussion and I wanna continue it, but I don't want to derail @Fiendish_Warrior 's original thread even more.
7
Comments
Anyway the evolution of Chinese warfare occurred during the turmoil of the Spring and Autumn Period 800 BC to 400BC (ish) and the Warring States Period 400BC to 221BC. In the Spring and Autumn period China was divided into many small kingdoms, and battles were mostly fought between relatively small forces of nobles and their retainers. Chariots figured heavily, rather like in Ancient Egypt. By the Warring States Period the surviving states grew larger and larger, and new technologies (mass production of iron weapons and crossbows) allowed them to levy huge numbers of commoners into massive infantry armies. These new weapons and innovations in infantry tactics and the adoption of nomadic cavalry tactics made chariots obsolete and war evolved into a contest of industrial and economic might, and total war between entire states, rather than just their respective nobility.
Crossbows are pretty advanced too actually, and Chinese used very large ones in seiges. Seige engines in the West showed up with Alexander iirc, so similar era.
As for the primitive military preceding the Warring States (well, also during), China had a pretty advanced military beauracracy. Actually, China I think was very good as beauracracy, eventually too good, but back then it was a big deal. Chariot use is pretty wrongheade, but chariots sound very good in theory, and most areas had to try them out before realizing how limited they are by terrain. Considering how hilly/mountainous much of China is though, kinda crazy they ever bothered.
Tldr; China was more advanced than 'stone age' technology suggests. Sun Tzu (well, his treatises) did not appear out of a vaccuum.
Regarding Egypt, yeah, the sheer age of the Old Kingdom boggles the mind. It was VERY important to Europeans to somehow explain away the obvious, and make Egyptians white.
First person accounts and narrative history don't really start until the Pelopenesian Wars. And we don't start having things like military training manuals until Xenophon.
I certainly don't mean to disparage some of the excellent and fascinating research that's been done; and I know heroic combat has been explained and rationalized quite carefully. But I think anything prior to the Pelopenesean Wars has to be considered educated guesswork.
But I do agree completely with that guesswork. And I love the odd dynamic bronze weapons add to the equation!
@heindrich I love how ancient Egypt is. 3000 years of history! Just amazing. Lots of ups and downs, lots of dark ages and rebirths. It's one of my favorite campaign settings for an AD&D game. So many periods to chose from and so much contact with the whole ancient world; some is very well documented, some is very speculative!
And I really enjoyed your write up on China. I admit I don't know nearly as much about it. But some really good stuff there, thank you!
Egypt btw was around wwwwaaaaayyy more than 3000 years ago. They were impossibly ancient by the time the Greeks started being Greeks, circa 1000 BC. Iirc, its more like 5 or 6000 years ago they got going. They got invaded by foreigners, including folks from what we call Ethiopia, and they were very black, even compared to the Egyptians.
I am not suggesting that China was Stone Age pre- Warring States Period. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the history of metallurgy, but I recall reading that China was slightly late to the party for the Bronze Age, possibly because of the availability of bamboo with which to make weapons and tools. I also know that once China picked up metallurgy, it advanced rapidly, and was the first to develop cast iron technology, which allowed mass production of iron weapons and tools on an industrial scale, which played a huge role in the development of massed warfare in the Warring States Period. (Better tools => Agricultural efficiency => Population boom => Bigger armies equipped with mass produced weapons.) Actually the cradle of Chinese civilisation was the Yellow River, which flows out to the North China Plain, the "breadbasket" of China until the late-Song Dynasty (1200s). There used to be a saying that "whoever rules the northern plains rules China", because unifying such a fertile but indefensible territory is difficult, but if anyone has the strength to do it, it becomes nearly impossible for any other powers to stop him. The mountains that covers most of southern China along and south of the Yangtze River were not part of China when chariots were a big deal. The Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period preceeding the Qin unification is actually relatively well documented. As you alluded to, the Chinese have always been OCD about bureacracy and recording things. (It's amazing how much of history of other eastern civilisations comes from Chinese records even after said civilisation disappeared without keeping their own records!) The Qin purges were mostly about ideology and philosophy, so we know about the "Hundred Schools of Thought", but most of the detail has been lost from most of the schools, except the few the Qin (and later the Han) Dynasty tolerated or encouraged. Hence Legalism and Confucianism became a big thing in China.
Before the Zhou and Shang Dynasties however (1600 BC), things get very sketchy. Chinese official education used to just claim that China has 5,000 years of history and counted the semi-mythological Xia Dynasty as historic fact. The truth is both more complicated and more interesting. Recent archaelogical evidence suggests a number of ancient civilisation existed in China dating from around the time of Xia Dynasty and even earlier. These were fairly sophisticated agricultural civilisations, but most of them were unrelated to the Han Chinese civilisation that would come to dominate the land that we call China. One of them is postulated to be the "Xia Dynasty" described by historians of later eras, but we don't know for sure. It is amazing to think that before the birth of Chinese civilisation, there were completely different cultures living within "China", rising and falling with the current of history, which could have taken an entirely different route. (Imagine if a parallel culture consolidated along the Yangtze River before the Han Chinese got there? It would be like Rome vs Carthage.)
Oh and @atcDave said ancient Egypt has 3000 years of history, not that it was 3000 years ago... Well actually they were there 3000 years ago, but they already had a few millenia under their belt by then. It's absolutely insane! lol
Interesting, wasn't aware the area was that amenable to chariots. Still, everyone tries chariots, and eventually realizes they are cool but impractical, so I don't fault a country for using them. Its a phase. The wheelbarrow though was a much better use of the wheel, easily one of the early game changers. Took Europeans a long time to figure THAT out!
I see that beaucracy obsession though as a sign that a very organized civilization had been occupying the area for a very long time. Beaucracy isn't needed in barbarous Northern Europe for millenia to come, yet China has it from their earliest days. So, I would be much more surprised if there wasn't civilization for millenia preceding history. People develop beaucracy to manage very large, dense, agrarian populations. Things like raiders from the steppes and the odd famine are needed to convince people of the need for it. The raiders we know existed and had horses most likely, and famines are a part of life, caused by weather and whatnot. I probably should see what I can find out about pre-Chinese China, sounds intriguing! About the beauracy point though, you'd almost have to have some form of functional math at least, and the alphabet (well, you know what I mean) is undeniably extremely ancient, so that would be pretty advanced for the era. Some form of legal framework is a must too. Curious stuff. If everything was being recorded on organic material, it could be hard to find the concrete evidence.
Learning about anything but Canadian and American history growing up is almost strictly independent study for me, my only academic history is Classical Civilizations and Russia, with a bit of Mongolian thrown in. Hard to find books about anything but Europe, too, but the Internet opens doors. Have to be careful of sources though. Very interesting discussion @Heindrich never enough history around here.
@atcDave Sorry, misread your comment. Egypt is such a peculiar civilization to look back on, on one hand impressively advanced in some ways, yet in others alien and baffling. Building gargantuan pyramids is just an example of how different their mindset was. I wonder if we'll ever find out how they engineered. Nobody could build perfect pyramids without very solid engineering. I know some even had shafts built in that lead directly to the north star... which back then wasn't Polaris.
I probably should see what I can find out about pre-Chinese China.
I meant pre-"Han Chinese". The Han being the dominant culture in China that consolidated during the Han Dynasty (hence the name). It is postulated that one of the ancient kingdoms (I wish I remembered the name) were the ancestors of Shang and Zhou peoples (for whom we have clear archaelogical evidence). IIRC the connection was made due to similarities in house-design (a family living around a rectangular courtyard) and evidence of ancestor worship.
If everything was being recorded on organic material, it could be hard to find the concrete evidence.
The earliest evidence of Chinese writing were written on bones, most famously turtle shells. The next big leap was dried bamboo, which were cut into strips and tied into scrolls. This allowed pretty sophisticated bureaucracy by the time of the Zhou Dynasty. Paper was invented in the Han Dynasty, but I don't think it was actually used in large quantity until the end of China's Dark Ages.
But no one pre-dates Egypt (as far as we know, always an important qualification!) for all the trappings we associate with civilization (writing, multi-city government, architecture).
Implying that Europeans blew off the sphinx's nose to hide something is about the silliest conspiracy theory I've ever seen.
I like this one...
1mm = 10 years... Not sure what size it is supposed to be though originally...
Whilst civilisations may be interesting, I find just the cities to be really cool. Looked up the oldest thinking it would be Jericho, Middle East... habited since 9000BC... But turns out it is Amesbury, England habited since 10,800BC... I must admit they do have a good pub...
Anyway Egypt is not that ancient... Most of my mates are from Ancient Egypt...
I like the Sumerians, invented writing you know...
As far as I am aware, civilisations in the most common definition of the word started appearing circa 3.5k BC. Of course, there were settlements way before that, but really advanced social structures didn't appear until around that time.
I have no idea about ringmail, I assumed it was just a form of chainmail, but if it really was a fabrication, then that's news to me. As for studded leather... I swear I have seen Mongols depicted with studded-type armour leathers and furs.
I know for sure however that the Manchu used studded armour quite extensively, it was actually standard issue equipment for heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.
Qing Dynasty heavy armour.
The Emperor's personal armour.
I don't know how effective or otherwise the studs were, and also it's not leather amour. For reasons I don't know, the Qing put the metal scales in traditional Chinese/Eastern armour beneath the cloth, perhaps to easily distinguish the different "Banners" (sub divisions) of the army.
Historians generally believe that brigandine is the armour that's often mistaken for studded leather, however, brigandine was considered heavy armour, and was worn by knights, while studded leather in D&D is light skirmisher armour, and is believed to be derived from modern bikers' leather.
I don't know for sure, though. This is just a guess. I know practically nothing about Chinese/Mongolian/Japanese armour, and most of what I know concerns mainly European armour, so it could well be that the Mongolians had an entire culture of studded armour. I just don't see what good it could do to put studs on a jack, when it just uses valuable steel, adds extra weight, and gives virtually no extra protection. If the studs were rivets to hold bits of metal on the inside, however, then that makes a lot more sense.
As for "ringmail", however: it is commonly believed by historians that it comes from images such as this:
We know that both Norman and Saxon knights wore mail, and since this had to be woven (it's from the Bayeux Tapestry btw), it'd have taken the better part of forever to create every single link, so it's likely that they represented mail by lots of big circles.