Did this accountant have a CPA?

I'd like to add that different colors means different things in different parts of the world. In Europe and the Mediterranean, purple was a rare and expensive color typically reserved for royalty. In East Asia by contrast, purple was not a royal color probably because it was not as rare. Beginning in the Zhou Dynasty, the kingdoms of the region had learned to produce synthetic purple & synthetic blue called "Han purple" and "Han blue" through a combination of mixing and/or melting different ores together. The Qin Terra Cotta soldiers had their some parts of their armor painted with some purple and blue colors. By the time the synthetic dyes were no longer as common, the culture(s) at that point had already associated other colors with royalty.

Yep. In East Asia in contrast, purple was not a royal color probably because it was not as rare. Beginning in the Zhou Dynasty, the kingdoms of the region had learned to produce synthetic purple & synthetic blue called "Han purple" and "Han blue" through a combination of mixing and/or melting different ores together. The Qin Terra Cotta soldiers had their some parts of their armor painted with some purple and blue colors. By the time the synthetic dyes were no longer as common, the culture(s) at that point had already associated other colors with royalty.

Ah, you are correct. The unreliable Romano-Britain iron production extrapolation estimates are indeed 80k tons, and not 50k tons. Yeh, your explanation of a range of 20k-50k iron production makes sense and that range seems more reasonable.

>. By the 1st-2nd century CE, the Roman Empire were producing an estimated 50,000 tonnes of iron a year

I've read that the estimates of those Roman iron production figures aren't really reliable. This is because those numbers are based on estimates of per capita production from a single Roman province (Roman Britain) that incidentally was a high iron production region, had a lot of iron ore, and had a relatively large military garrison. And that estimate of a disproportionately high iron rich & producing region was then extrapolated to the rest of the empire based the Empire's population.

Edit: You are correct. The unreliable Romano-Britain iron production extrapolation estimates are the estimates for 80k tons, and not estimates for up to 50k tons.

I'd say it was less of a weapons advantage and more due to a tactical advantage of better army composition and more flexible troops. The Roman pila could double as a 7 foot thrusting spear, and many of the Macedonian or Successor State troops also had short swords as backup weapons.

At Pydna and other battles, the Macedonian or Successor state armies had their formations fall apart due to poor tactics and/or inflexible formations that broke apart chasing after the enemy or broke apart due to rough terrain. They also had an overreliance on pike infantry and neglected their supporting troops and cavalry wing that were crucial to a successful mixed unit formation. Alexander's army was less than 1/3 pikemen iirc and was mostly non pikemen.

I've read it was both. Some sources say they often carried two pila, but in some contexts and some time periods, they carried only 1 pila.

Correction to the post above - Roman swords were longer in the mid Republican era. The gladius actually got shorter (eg. 6 inches shorter) by the time of the early Empire compared to med Republican era swords. They only got longer by the mid to late Empire with the adoption of the spatha for infantry.

Roman swords were longer in the mid Republican era. The gladius actually got shorter (eg. 6 inches shorter) by the time of the early Empire compared to med Republican era swords. They only got longer by the mid to late Empire with the adoption of the spatha for infantry.

Note that the claim that Roman formations are too tight to use spears/axes/longer weapons/etc is a myth. A typical or common Roman infantry formation during the Republic or early Empire is described as having around 3 feet of space between each man. This is a rather spacious formation that gives each soldier plenty of room to deploy spear or sword, and is a more spacious formation than the classical Greek phalanxes that used heavy thrusting spears.

3 feet of space is also comparable to or greater than the spacing used by many pike formations, as many Rennisance European pikemen also had around 3 feet of space between each man and sometimes had as little as only 1.5 feet of space. Even the more loose formation of Ming Dynasty pikemen was still only 3.5 feet between each man according to the Ming military blog.

Thus, contrary to some belief that Roman combat was too cramped for spears, there would be no issue in using a long heavy thrusting spear or a 7 foot pila/throwing spear in melee combat when there was 3 feet of space between each man.

Of course, there could have been and probably were cases when the Romans switched to a much tighter formation where a shorter sword was more manuverable and easier to use than a long thrusting spears or pila in melee.

> This restricted the space, making it difficult for the enemy to wield swords or axes or spears in the tight quarters. The small gaps in the shield wall were used to strike the enemy, the gladius' design was perfect for close up thrusting attacks.

The Roman formations were often even more loosely spaced than typical spear and pike formations. A typical or common Roman infantry formation during the Republic or early Empire is described as having around 3 feet of space between each man. This is a rather spacious formation that gives each soldier plenty of room to deploy spear or sword, and is a more spacious formation than the classical Greek phalanxes that used heavy thrusting spears.

3 feet of space is also comparable to or greater than the spacing used by many pike formations, as many Rennisance European pikemen also had around 3 feet of space between each man and sometimes had as little as only 1.5 feet of space. Even the more loose formation of Ming Dynasty pikemen was still only 3.5 feet between each man according to the Ming military blog.

Thus, contrary to some belief that Roman combat was too cramped for spears, there would be no issue in using a long heavy thrusting spear or a 7 foot pila/throwing spear in melee combat when there was 3 feet of space between each man.

Of course, there could have been and probably were cases when the Romans switched to a much tighter formation where a shorter sword was more manuverable and easier to use than a long thrusting spears or pila in melee.

>Doubt they had any proper musket training nor was combined arms a concept understood in China at the time.

Combined arms was a concept understood at the time (Ming Dynasty in this 17th century battle) and had been used since the 400s BC (when crossbowmen were combined with archers, pikemen, halberdiers, etc in Warring States armies). The Ming Dynasty had pike formations that combined musketeers with pikemen and archers.

The 16th century Ming general Qi Jiguang even developed a quasi-pike formation called the Mandarin duck that combined shielded swordsmen + pikemen + ranged troops (muskets, archers, etc) + a guy with a weird polearm called the wolf's brush.

The problem here was not the lack of knowledge, but that government corruption and incompetence meant the soldiers were not properly equipped or trained to use combined arms combat correctly.