Best unit

And that they could use the countermarch for the crossbows which Europe didn't use.

"LOL--that's a highly subjective statement, my friend."

 

Everything is generalizating, but a great number of scholars agree. Its very clear that crossbows have been used more effectively in East Asia than Europe, For Example the English prefered the Longbow over the Crossbow, and proven its effectiveness on the field. While the Song army prefered their Shen Bi crossbow much over the Composite bows. Because the Song army had better crossbow and more disciplined and organized way of using it.

"And the Chinese didn't have crossbows as powerful as the European steel ones of the 15th & 16th centuries, as I already pointed out (though, as you mentioned, these were more applicable for siege work)."

Prove it. The Chinese had Windlass as well. The Chinese siege crossbows of the Tang and Song mention a range of over 1000 yards. This is more confirmed by the Arab source of the same era which documents the same distance during the Mongol invasion.

Contemporary Korean crossbows mention similar ranges. The East Asian crossbows is no way inferior in strength.

 

And come to think of it, why do I have to prove anything?  Everything I've posted regarding the weapons in question is pretty much common knowledge.  Why don't you post some sources for these supposed Chinese super-crossbows?

Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

Cataphracts: I just love 'em. At least in Medieval:Total War they're pretty invincible, sad that they're not owerpower-unit in RTW too...

I would have a big, armoured elephant component in my super pre-gunpowder army. I would beat Mongol HAs because I would choose my gound so the horses didn't have heaps of room to move. My elephants would be armoured and have towers with 4 men using whatever bow was best, and would be teamed with relevent infantry. When these super dooper HAs come close enough they would be showered with arrows, fired from high on an elephants back, before they got close enough to penetrate my elephant's armour. I wouldn't be so stupid to chase horse archers into a trap, they would have to come to be and be destroyed. I believe everyone talks about mobility until the war starts, then people start talking about firepower and protection.

"And that they could use the countermarch for the crossbows which Europe didn't use."

 

I actually find them very wrong, and I mean very wrong.

Europe was using some a cross those in the meal times, that the Pope tried contained the number of crossbows in Europe.

�Source for them is in Needham's science and civiliazation siege and missiles, the Song and Tang crossbow (as well as those of Korea) that has over 1000 yard has a windlass and mechanical operated by one men that has been confirmed by Arab sources in the siege of Baghdad.�

Now 1000 yd., that�s equivalent to modern-day rifles, there�s something wrong there, now if you mean they show up in the air and came down to the enemy (the arrows), that will still be an IFFY!!

Would not doubt at all , if the Europeans at this time, had as powerful or more powerful crossbows, if you know the Europeans did have crossbows in the Roman times.

so saying that�s was not new to them.

oh and yes. Almost forgot to mention, the Romans did have steel, they used more steel than what you think, on the armor on this swords and other things. so saying this to steel is not new in Europe.

I found this information by going to Roma this past spring vacation.

 

 

 

The HAs wouldn't be able to choose their own tactics, their style would be cramped by my choice of gound and the obstacles erected by my engineers/infantry. In addition my elephant archers would be using the best bows available, probably the same as the HAs, so in an archery duel it would be HAs shooting at armoured elephants vs elephant archers shooting at light cav from a greater hieght. My elephant archers would have a zone of invulnerablity against HAs, the area where my forces could kill HAs but not be killed themselves, which I would exploit. My aim would be to make the HAs dwell in this zone so I could attrit them before they could close to their effective range.

"I meant "common knowledge" in regards to the European steel-staved crossbows being the most powerful."

 

There is no common sense about it. Common sense often then not is based upon ignorance and this is one of the cases. Not to mention range does not equal strength and I have never said the East Asian crossbows were more powerful in penetration ability.

 

"BTW, you still haven't answered my question--did the Chinese have steel-staved crossbows?"

No, but they did have winch armed, Li Chuan clearly mention the rotary arming motions on the crossbow and how its only suitable for assaulting fortifications. I've misread your windlass as winch armed. But in any case steel stave isn't the only factor of power.

 

 

"Is this text readily available?"

 

Yes, the Tang treatise of  Wang Chu Chiao She Ching. The range is eqivalent to 1160 yards. This isn't only in Tang sources, but as early as the Warring states, Shi Ji records the bowmen of the kingdom of Han has a shot of over 500 paces which is nearly 900 yards. Contemporary Shilla and later Koryo crossbows also mention this range. This range seems credible only with difficulty, yet strangely enough there is a confirmation of it from a Persian source, namely the historian Ala al-Din-Juwaini, who wrote of what happened when one of the almost impregnable castles of the Assasins was taken by Hulagu. In his words "..and a Kaman-i gav which had been constructed by Cathayan craftsmen, and which had a range of 2500 paces, was brought to bear on those fools, when no other remedy remained, and of the devil like Heretics many soldiers were burntby those meteoric shots." The castle was Maimun-Diz the strongest military base of the assasins.

Here, they record in 1256, the Chinese arcuballistae shot their projectiles in 2500 arab paces (over 1100 yards) from a position on top of some mountain,(see Reinaud and Fave (2), p. 295). Huuri(I), pp.7, 124 considers this exceptional range of about 1 kilometre not at all impossible. 

"1000 yards--seems odd that Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey never mentioned it..."

 

It wouldn't be odd if he never read primary Chinese, Korean and Arab documents on them. No surviving species of this bow is recovered because of its age, which add to the difficulty of making a solid conclusion of weapon comparison which these people love to do. Needham did in fact mention specifically about Payne Gallwey in his book and obviously his expertise focus on the Western(including West Asia) bows.

Once you strip away a HAs mobility you don't have very much. I'm talking about operational and strategic mobility here, their ability to make moves of dozens of miles at a time.  If hemmed in by natural, improved natural and artificial obstacles HAs will be unable to disengage from a bad situation and re engage in a different, better place. Without their wider ranging mobility can Mongol HAs survive in a battle with an opponent with similar individual weapons, heavy weapons, more armour, using attrition and shock tactics?

Of course there is, plenty of places. How many countries have a river, mountain range or some other obstacle as their borders? The thing about HAs is that they come from an area where there are few natural obstacles cramping their attacks.