Defensive Armor of the Han Period 229 



It must certainly be granted, as justly emphasized by Chavannes, 1 

 that the Huns were initiated also into the more "scientific" strategy of 

 the Chinese by those Chinese generals who, from fear of being cashiered 

 and court -martialled at home as a sequel of their defeats, preferred 

 surrender to the enemy. The brave General Li Ling, who was forced 

 to surrender to the Huns, is reported to have trained their soldiers in the 

 art of war as then practised by the Chinese; the Emperor, on hearing 

 these tidings, condemned him as a traitor, and caused his mother, wife, 

 and children to be put to death. 2 



Hirth, 3 in balancing the advantages and shortcomings of Hunnic and 

 Chinese warfare, thinks that the Chinese have had on their side greatly 

 superior armament and a certain uniformity of organization. The 

 latter observation is doubtless to the point, but I hardly believe that 

 Chinese arms were superior in technique to those of the Huns: the 

 ancient bronze and iron arms discovered in Siberian soil are surely as 

 good as any of ancient China. Possibly the crossbow, which was foreign 

 to the Huns, rendered the Chinese superior in some respect. 



The military equipment and organization of the Han, compared 

 with that of the Chou, show a number of fundamental changes which are 

 simultaneously symptoms of radical reforms in the manner of tactics 

 and strategy. The main features of these innovations are the great 

 importance attributed to the horse, — as the renowned General Ma 

 Yuan put it, "the horse is the foundation of all military operations," 4 — 

 the preponderance of horsemen over infantry, the prevalence of the 

 crossbow over the bow, the use of body armor on the part of the horse- 

 men, and the gradual development of a genuine and regular cavalry. 

 The immediate cause of these military reforms was brought about by the 

 endless struggles with the ever-restless nomadic hordes threatening the 

 north-western outskirts of the empire; and imitation of their mode of 

 warfare consequently became imperative. The wearing of armor 

 by the horsemen, as we noticed, was a custom of the Huns; and if the 

 Chinese followed suit, we may well lay it down as an adoption of Hunnic 

 practice. This is not merely an impression in the matter, but a fact 

 confirmed by the report of Ch'ao Ts'o presented to the throne in b.c. 

 169. 5 In this lengthy memorial the diversity of Hunnic and Chinese 

 warfare is set forth in detail; and for the first time the formation of a 



1 Les Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. I, p. lxix. 



2 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 450. 



3 Ancient History of China, p. 166. 



4 Hou Han shu, Ch. 54, p. 9. 



6 L. Wieger, Textes historiques, p. 414. 



