The Chinese Special Unit: Why A Mounted Unit for China? A possible answer...

[Transcend]

Even if the Mongols invented the Stirrup, they won't show up in Civ3, which means China is the next in line.

Firaxis made couple of mistakes in the decription of China's unique unit:
1. Mongols were not the first one to use heavy cavalry against China. Their ancestors, the Huns, had massed heavy cavalry well before 200BC. The wars conducted by Emperor Wu of Han were mainly fought with heavy cavalry, and that happened at least 100BC, 1300 years earlier than 12th century.

2. Mongol cavalry can't possibly be more heavier than the plate-armored Western knights. What set Mongols apart from the rest of world was their tactics, mobility, discipline, and rider's skill. Also, horse archers were the main strengh of the Mongol cavalry. How could an archer work well in heavy armor?

[Harlan]

Tingkai,
I agree that who invented something is not necessarily that important (though sometimes it can be, esp. if no one else picks up on it for a long time). The whole stirrup question is kind of a wild goose chase to begin with, as I've been trying to say that it was somewhat important, but not a huge quantum leap in horse warfare effectiveness as its sometimes made out to be.

I don't know the relative importance of high pommel and cantle vs. stirrup, but many areas in the West were ravaged by horse riding peoples before they were using the stirrup.

Transcend, the Mongols did have some heavier cavalry, but you're right, generally speaking mobility was key. Their horses were also much smaller than the ones used by European knights. The huge European horses used up a lot of resources getting around, making their range of use more limited. The Mongols also didn't need thick armor because of their use of silk clothing, which typically doesn't puncture when hit by an arrow. So even though the arrow cuts into you and makes you bleed, the arrowhead is still surrounded by the silk, and you can easily pull it out and almost always have no infection. Pretty clever, eh?

But don't think the Mongols as starting with Genghis Khan. That was when they burst out into the world in popular form, but in a looser way (language families and cultural groupings), pretty much all the nomads north of China can be categorized as either Turk or Mongol (or a mix), so they go back to the Hsiung-nu times and before. Kind of like the Arabs, with people tending to think that they didn't exist before 600 AD, when in fact they go back a long ways.
s

[Tingkai]

I never knew that about the silk. Interesting stuff. Have you seen this link:

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/stirrup.shtml

Don't get thrown off by the reference to White at the beginning. The interesting stuff is the archeological evidence for the initial use of stirrups by the Chinese. The author dates it at about 300 AD. Don't know how much truth is in the article, but it sounds fairly accurate.

The author also mentions an interesting theory about who would have invented the stirrup.

"As early as 1926 A. von Le Coo pointed out that, on the basis of conjecture, it is as reasonable to say that the stirrup was the invention either of a mounted people who sought with it to make riding less tiring, or of a people unused to riding who sought thereby to obtain quickly the skills necessary to meet the needs of cavalry warfare."

[lord of the mark]

Excuse me did I miss something? It seems to me that Firaxis started with the Chinese Golden age, which they apparently determined (not unreasonably) was the Ming dynasty. But the Ming is parallel in time to the high middle ages in Europe, the time of the dominance of armored knights (yeah i know the overlap isnt perfect, as the zenith of the Ming took place after Crecy) . SO they decided they had to give China a superior knight, so that the timing of the golden age would work.

This would be equivalent to what they did with Egypt (though more extreme) - there being no evidence that Egyptian chariots were any better than anyone else's at the time, but the point was to give Egypt its golden age in late Bronze (which made sense)

Thats what they do - they first decide WHEN the golden age should be, then back into the appropriate special unit. Which makes sense, since the special units arent (presumably) as important a feature as the golden ages.

Only contrary evidence I can think of is the Zulus. (who are problematic anyway) Any others?

LOTM

[Tingkai]

This link, again from the Silk Road Foundation, dates invention of stirrup to 900BC. Again, I can't vouch for the accuracy.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/chrono.shtml

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Harlan
The whole stirrup question is kind of a wild goose chase to begin with, as I've been trying to say that it was somewhat important, but not a huge quantum leap in horse warfare effectiveness as its sometimes made out to be.

I don't know the relative importance of high pommel and cantle vs. stirrup, but many areas in the West were ravaged by horse riding peoples before they were using the stirrup.

Just because areas in the west were ravaged by horsemen who did not have stirrup does not undermine the importance of the stirrup.

It was a significant technological change simply because it provides the rider with a more secure seat. Riders armed with a sword have much better control with a stirrup than those who do not. The same applies to archers.

What has been disputed by historians is the importance of the stirrup with regards to the use of the lance and the rise of heavy armoured knights. In that case the stirrup becomes part of a larger package. Speaking of which, the armoured knights did not apparently require large horses from what I have read.

I think Harlan's information about silk and arrows shows the mistake of assuming that since the European knights were clad in metal armour, that therefore they were individually a better unit.

If the Chinese were clad in silk, their riders would have been less heavy allowing the horses to run further. The silk provided better protection against arrows. So providing the Rider unit with better movement and better defence than the knight would seem appropriate.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Harlan
But don't think the Mongols as starting with Genghis Khan. That was when they burst out into the world in popular form, but in a looser way (language families and cultural groupings), pretty much all the nomads north of China can be categorized as either Turk or Mongol (or a mix), so they go back to the Hsiung-nu times and before.

It depends on who you believe. China's northern border had always been plagued by nomadic tribes. It's very hard to trace back in history using language families or cultural groupings as most these people had no written form of language.

Chinese history had Huns and some other nomadic tribes in the region before the Mongols. As a matter of fact somewhere around Genghis Khan's time there were four major groups in that area.

[mactbone]

Whoa there, which would you rather wear if an arrow was coming at you, Silk or Metal? In the earlier statement about silk armor, silk did not prevent penetration, just infection and tearing of vital parts. That would compare nicely to chain mail, although chain mail is heavier and it stops hand weapons better. Silk was very useful no doubt, but to say that it stops an arrow better than plate mail doesn't make much sense to me.

[Melios]

It seems that some of the civilizations "encapsulate" other cultures historically from the same region, even at different times. For example:

Babylonians: Encapsulates Assyrians, Akkadians, and maybe Sumerians. At least it seemed that way in Civ2 based on the city names, except Sumer wasn't in there by default. Of course, Sumerians were almost "predescessors" (despite being non-Semetic) to Babylonins & Assyrians as they dominated Mesopotamia almost two millenia before Assyrians, Babylonians, and Akkadians showed up.

English: Really refers to the British, including Scots, Welsh and Irish.

Chinese: It seems obvious that this has elements of the other tribes like Monguls, Avars, Huns, etc. Especially if the Chinese often used the nomadic horsemen as mercenaries on long-term uses.

Greeks: Seems to include Macedonia and the empire carved by Alexander the great. Why do you think he's the leader?

Historically, this is largey inaccurate on the whole (except for about the Greeks, the 3 kingdoms of Alexander's empire were still Greek ), but in Civ3 (and Civ1 & Civ2) you are rewriting history, often on a randomly generated world, so who knows how things really turn out.

The way I see it, there are only two kinds of UU I can imagine for the Chinese:

a. A mounted unit (like the Rider)

b. A crossbowman (wielding a Cho Ku Nu)

One last thing: I think the name "Rider" does sound more like an "oriental" description (over cavalry or horseman). Don't ask me why though.........