Rome vs Han China

[IDonT]

Who would win?

The Roman Testudo and manipular infantry tactic vs the Han Dynasty crossbow and missile warfare.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The Romans had weak cavalry. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows. Han infantry was weak though, but they did have very powerful crossbows. The Romans also equipped their soldiers with better armor.

[ger_mark]

romans

stronger in swordbattles

[FriedRiceNSpice]

However, as proven in the Battle of Canae (aka the battle where Hanibal slaughtered 60,000 Romans), Roman legionaires had a weakness to cavalry. The Han had very strong cavalry, similiar to the Hunnish cavalry that defeated the Legions in the 5th century AD.

[BKulan]

it's a question that is very hard to answer.

first of all the romans was in constant expansion until they split into two empires, also they had a lot of training considering that they had extremely long military duty, if i remember correctly it was as much as 20 years (not sure on this one).

On the other hand the Chinese had crossbows that easily could penetrate the armor given to roman soldiers but range was still a major problem considering that the romans still could pepper them with bows which have both superior range and rate of fire.

on the whole it is extremely hard to predict what would have happened if the romans and the Chinese would have warred against each other

[MIGleader]

han china would own rome because they had 600,000 soldiers and actual horse troopers, while rome had 100,000 and only used horseman as patrol.

[Liberator]

Well best Han China will be the Songs :).

Roman are disciplane. China can use rocketries and fire carts to blow at the Romans, first time for Romans to see such fire work! Therefore, away they flee! And Roman cavalries charge and the Hans will charge with Cavalries too (Hans infantries has ordinary armour you can say, but lot other higher rank soldiers got iron breastplates that covers the whole body, and the Romans only got legion armours or even leather. China has an big army in the Medieval times too.

I would say Romans will lose :). Just cuz they got nice formations does not mean they got better weapons. We all never seen Romans fighting Han China. So it must be called a match.

But for saying, I vote for China.

[IDonT]

However, as proven in the Battle of Canae (aka the battle where Hanibal slaughtered 60,000 Romans), Roman legionaires had a weakness to cavalry. The Han had very strong cavalry, similiar to the Hunnish cavalry that defeated the Legions in the 5th century AD.


Actually, the better battle that illustrates Roman Cavalry weakness is Carrae.
40,000 Roma Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. Point could be said that the Roman commander, Crassus was inept.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Both the Romans and Chinese had very good artillery (catapults and ballistas). Romans had superior infantry, especiall heavy infantry, though the Chinese had better missile troops (are you sure that Roman bows outranged Chinese crossbows? Also, Chinese crossbows had a faster rate of fire than European ones of the Middle Ages). I still think the decisive factor here is cavalry, for cavlary have proved for centuries to be the bane of heavy infantry. Also, the Chinese could field armies of a million troops, while the Romans at their height had 250,000 legionaires and a equal number of auxiliaries.

[IDonT]

Well best Han China will be the Songs :).

Roman are disciplane. China can use rocketries and fire carts to blow at the Romans, first time for Romans to see such fire work! Therefore, away they flee! And Roman cavalries charge and the Hans will charge with Cavalries too (Hans infantries has ordinary armour you can say, but lot other higher rank soldiers got iron breastplates that covers the whole body, and the Romans only got legion armours or even leather. China has an big army in the Medieval times too.

I would say Romans will lose :). Just cuz they got nice formations does not mean they got better weapons. We all never seen Romans fighting Han China. So it must be called a match.

But for saying, I vote for China.

I don't think gun powder has been invented in that era yet.

[Liberator]

Cataphract (heavy cavalry).

Cataphracts are heavy armoured knights of Byzantine empire (Eastern Roman empire)...

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Well best Han China will be the Songs :).

Roman are disciplane. China can use rocketries and fire carts to blow at the Romans, first time for Romans to see such fire work! Therefore, away they flee! And Roman cavalries charge and the Hans will charge with Cavalries too (Hans infantries has ordinary armour you can say, but lot other higher rank soldiers got iron breastplates that covers the whole body, and the Romans only got legion armours or even leather. China has an big army in the Medieval times too.

I would say Romans will lose :). Just cuz they got nice formations does not mean they got better weapons. We all never seen Romans fighting Han China. So it must be called a match.

But for saying, I vote for China.

The Hans didn't have gunpoweder weapons yet. Gunpowder wasn't invented until the Song dynasty. Also, only Chinese officers and commanders wore iron breastplates. The Roman army actually had 500,000 at its height, although during the 3 Kingdoms period China has raised armies of over a million multiple times.

[Liberator]

At the Roman times, China are beating huns with little bit of helps with rockets.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Cataphracts are heavy armoured knights of Byzantine empire (Eastern Roman empire)...

Someone plays far too much AOK.
Historically, cataphracts were first used by the Parthians and Armenians. They would be adopted by the Byzantines later on, and Eastern European nations (Poland, Hungary) after that.

[Liberator]

People say Romans are the strongest empire in the Ancient era. Well, they sure earn a great empire but.. The countries Roman fought has troops that wore no armour, undisciplane men but brave and fierce. Romans often outnumber soldiers from Britannia. Africa you say? Carthage could have captured Roma. But they lost. Why? Cuz Hannibal must return to protect Carthage.

[Liberator]

[QUOTE]Someone plays far too much AOK.
Historically, cataphracts were first used by the Parthians and Armenians. They would be adopted by the Byzantines later on, and Eastern European nations (Poland, Hungary) after that.QUOTE]

But I got that info from a history book :( ..

[IDonT]

Cataphracts are heavy armoured knights of Byzantine empire (Eastern Roman empire)...


Yes I know, they got the idea from the Parthian Empire who were the first to use them

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Pound for pound, the Roman army was the strongest of the Ancient Era. However, Chinese emperors could raise, train, and equip armies of millions of men while the Romans had no more than 500,000 soldiers at their height.

[Liberator]

Maybe Rome had so many inflations.

[Liberator]

Looks like a nice game : http://www.dbaol.com

This game can make Han China versus Roma.

[IDonT]

People say Romans are the strongest empire in the Ancient era. Well, they sure earn a great empire but.. The countries Roman fought has troops that wore no armour, undisciplane men but brave and fierce. Romans often outnumber soldiers from Britannia. Africa you say? Carthage could have captured Roma. But they lost. Why? Cuz Hannibal must return to protect Carthage.


Rome in her time also fought several discipline armies.

1. The armies of Carthage.
2. King Philip V of Macedon's pike Phalanx
3. Seulecids phalanx and Cataphract army

They beat them all.

Although Han unde Wudi destroyed the Huns.

[MIGleader]

most of the 500,000 were auxilaries.

the chinese had impressice formations, and brilliant generals.
and ancient china certainly did have a technological advantage.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

most of the 500,000 were auxilaries.

the chinese had impressice formations, and brilliant generals.
and ancient china certainly did have a technological advantage.

At its height, Rome commanded 30 legions. That is 300,000 professional legionaires.

The Chinese did not have as impressive formations, and both sides had brilliant generals. Also, the Han only had one technological advantage: the crossbow.

[MIGleader]

and the compass, and the silk trade which rome loved.

and they had sun-tsu and his art of war.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The compass does not really help in warfare, unless its naval battles. The silk trade wasn't really a technological advantage, it was just a trade route. The Art of War would help the Chinese, but only if their commanders could carry it out correctly.

[MIGleader]

compass gets you out of the gobi desert.

war with han means no silk trade wich means angry rich romans, which means no money for war.

[Obcession]

Yea, I'd say China had better generals.

Han would win because of their crossbowmen and cavalry. Although people, don't forget, the Chinese infantry falters when their general is killed.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

compass gets you out of the gobi desert.

war with han means no silk trade wich means angry rich romans, which means no money for war.

The Romans brought in wealth from throughout their large empire. The Chinese generated huge amounts of wealth from within their empire. Both sides were wealthy.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Yea, I'd say China had better generals.

Han would win because of their crossbowmen and cavalry. Although people, don't forget, the Chinese infantry falters when their general is killed.

Most armies do falter if their general is killed. The Roman Legions might be better off, since they are professional soldiers and not likely to falter as easily.

[Liberator]

Most armies do falter if their general is killed. The Roman Legions might be better off, since they are professional soldiers and not likely to falter as easily.

Not if we use rocket to scare em :D ... TOO BAD THERE ISNT THE ROLLING AND LAAUGHING EMOCTION!

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Well... I don't think China had rockets during the Han dynasty. Gunpowder wasn't invented until the late Tang, and firearms not until the Song. And let me try this: :rollin

[rommel]

well, a roman legion was very well organize, a roman legion was composed of 10 cohort, each with 540 men and 7 centurions and the first cohort carry an imperial eagle that inspire man during battle, 2 wing of cavarly, and 600 auxiliary (archer and some spearman), the roman had very good training and morale. They don't use cavalry as main combat force, only as auxiliary and most of the cavalry were non-roman citizen but people that were very good hosreman, they were from Gaul and even sometime, Germania. The Cavalry are good to attack from behind (that's how Hannibal won the Battle of Canae) but in this time, that were not the imperial legion, was the republic era-legion that were citizen drafted for the war. The roman imperial legion was very well disciplined and good armor, they main weapon was the pila, pilum or the javelin, each legionnary usually have 2, one light and one heavy, the light got better range and the heavy very good armor piercing, they were also design to break when hitting something or something, but the broken-part stayed on the rest, when it's break, the rear part of the javelin will fall on the ground without detach, so the roman soldier, only have to march on the "broken part" and if the pilum was in the shield, the shield will be pulled and do not protect the ennemy soldier anymore. The cavalry was efficient against roman soldiers but only on the initial charge , the roman also fight in 3 lines, so if the cavalry break the 1st line, the 2nd will always counter-charge. The legionnary was unbeateable on hand-to-hand fighting. It's be pretty interesting a combat between those 2.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

well, a roman legion was very well organize, a roman legion was composed of 10 cohort, each with 540 men and 7 centurions and the first cohort carry an imperial eagle that inspire man during battle, 2 wing of cavarly, and 600 auxiliary (archer and some spearman), the roman had very good training and morale. They don't use cavalry as main combat force, only as auxiliary and most of the cavalry were non-roman citizen but people that were very good hosreman, they were from Gaul and even sometime, Germania. The Cavalry are good to attack from behind (that's how Hannibal won the Battle of Canae) but in this time, that were not the imperial legion, was the republic era-legion that were citizen drafted for the war. The roman imperial legion was very well disciplined and good armor, they main weapon was the pila, pilum or the javelin, each legionnary usually have 2, one light and one heavy, the light got better range and the heavy very good armor piercing, they were also design to break when hitting something or something, but the broken-part stayed on the rest, when it's break, the rear part of the javelin will fall on the ground without detach, so the roman soldier, only have to march on the "broken part" and if the pilum was in the shield, the shield will be pulled and do not protect the ennemy soldier anymore. The cavalry was efficient against roman soldiers but only on the initial charge , the roman also fight in 3 lines, so if the cavalry break the 1st line, the 2nd will always counter-charge. The legionnary was unbeateable on hand-to-hand fighting. It's be pretty interesting a combat between those 2.


Of course, you can use cavalary to attack from the rear, the flanks, or from multiple angles at once. Also, swords are not very effective against cavalry, especially spear-armed cavalry. Also, cavalry archers are very hard to counter with heavy infantry.

[Liberator]

Han Chinese - Romans


Crossbow - shortbow.

Plate armour - Legion armour.

Millions of soldiers - Thousands.

Allied (With goths, Germans, Brittanias, Vandals...) - Alone...

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Han Chinese - Romans


Crossbow - shortbow.

Plate armour - Legion armour.

Millions of soldiers - Thousands.

Allied (With goths, Germans, Brittanias, Vandals...) - Alone...

Only a very small fraction of Chinese soldiers had plate armor, while most used armor made from pieces of bamboo and leather. Also, in numbers it will be something around 2,000,000 versus 500,000. And in this discussion, I thought we were excluding allies.

[T-U-P]

Allied (With goths, Germans, Brittanias, Vandals...) - Alone...
why would all those groups be allies with Han? it'll more likely to be free-for-all rather than allies.

anyone know what kind of formations would the Han use?

[Liberator]

why would all those groups be allies with Han? it'll more likely to be free-for-all rather than allies.

Cuz they know its a Empire versus a Empire. They would co-operate with the Han for sure to repel the ROman invaders.

[Obcession]

why would all those groups be allies with Han? it'll more likely to be free-for-all rather than allies.

anyone know what kind of formations would the Han use?


Chinese ancient armies uses all kinds of formation depending on the terrain and enemy. There're a series of formations that has from numbers 1-10. For example, Four dragons formation, Three hook, etc etc.

The Han army could just encircle the enemy and shoot it up with missile weapons, and when the enemy's morale is broken (6/10 of the enemies dead) then use the cavalry to charge them.

[stonewind]

For the love of cake not another rome vs china!!! Well heres a simple answer.


Rome went to war with the parthians and the siung niu (middle east Kazakhtan) in the latter parts of the roman empire(100. ad) The romans lost because the Parthians had heavy armored cavalry which dispatched the enemy lines, scattered and confused them. THus making them vulnerable to attack. The roman spear wall became ineffective because of the length of there spears 10 to 15 feet long making them useless in close quarters, if the parthians break through there lines there dead.

A few years later when the parthians were controling the silk road, china was pissed and sent her armies. The chinese having superior tactics and having better weapons (Zhao,Mao tridents) at hand which were more flexible and better than spears 15 feet long and gladius' which were to heavy for a short sword, were more evenly matched against the Parthians.

After some while when the parthians were defeated, the chinese general who sieged the parthians recalled yellow haired barbarians in the parthians troops who used what he defines as a fish scale formation, with shields linked together. He also recalled seeing them used double palisades for defense (No doubt roman).

Before violently reacting to my posts, google the ones below.


My source - Homer Dubbs, historian.
The city of Lee Jien, the lost roman city in china.

[vincelee]

but if we simplify this into a rock-paper-scissor scenario, we won't know for sure.

[T-U-P]

but war is not a game of chance, the out come of one depends on many different factors such as the strategies used, the general commanding the army, the soldiers' morale level, amount of supplies, etc.

[vincelee]

which means this entire conversation is, well, moot.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

but war is not a game of chance

I beg to differ. In may instances, the outcome of a battle may depend on, well, sheer luck. One lucky spear throw can kill the enemy general, one lucky rainstorm can wet the strings of the enemy crossbowman (as occured in the battle of Crecy). It may be just sheer luck than an army rested for one extra day and avoided an abmush that would've left it to its total destruction.

[Obcession]

I beg to differ. In may instances, the outcome of a battle may depend on, well, sheer luck. One lucky spear throw can kill the enemy general, one lucky rainstorm can wet the strings of the enemy crossbowman (as occured in the battle of Crecy). It may be just sheer luck than an army rested for one extra day and avoided an abmush that would've left it to its total destruction.

A good army does not depend on luck, so if it's army is weakened by luck it will not be destroyed. A good army's general always know where the enemy might ambush him and sends scouts forward. I think it depends mostly on the general, and there has been cases in history when an army that was outnumbered by the enemy 10 to 1 won the battle.

[Liberator]

A good army does not depend on luck

Some times they do.

If the Romans had 3000 legions and Han has only 100 guards in a small city.

What if the city is near a cliff, and 2999 Romans sliped and died on accident? Then its 100 on 1 :). LOL

[T-U-P]

you must be insane, liberator, 2999 died of slipping of a cliff?! if the general is smart, then he might not attack the city directly but rather surround the city and wait the enemies out. the enemy would eventually run out of food and water. see, no casualties. :rolleyes:

[IDonT]

Rome do have very formidable discipline and tactics. But they do not have monopoly of it.

In han China, crossbowmen are arrange in 3 ranks to alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank -advance). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks.

[Liberator]

you must be insane, liberator, 2999 died of slipping of a cliff?! if the general is smart, then he might not attack the city directly but rather surround the city and wait the enemies out. the enemy would eventually run out of food and water. see, no casualties.

I was just showing that battles can be won with luck.

[Obcession]

I was just showing that battles can be won with luck.

:D Well battles can be won with luck, yes, but good generals do not depend on luck. A better example of your example is:

A huge army surrounds a city, the city is outnumbered by a whole lot and have no way of manning the walls sufficiently, so the city's general ordered all the gates to be opened, with only old men sweeping the way by the gate, and the general plays an instrument on the city walls, infront of the enemy army formations. The enemy sees this, and thinks, hm, they are letting us into the city. No, it must be a trap. And the besieging army retreats. Luck? No. Strategy my friend, the city's general, Zhu Ge Liang, knew the besieging army's general's personality pretty well. He also knew that the enemy general is always very suspicious of things. So he knew if he made things look suspicious enough, the enemy will think it's a trap and retreat.

After 2 days the besieging army's general realized he was fooled and attacked the city again. But the city has been abandoned. No one was inside but civilians.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Rome do have very formidable discipline and tactics. But they do not have monopoly of it.

In han China, crossbowmen are arrange in 3 ranks to alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank -advance). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks.

Wouldn't that mean the crossbowmen would be firing into their own heavy infantry?

But the city has been abandoned. No one was inside but civilians.

But then in the end, you lose the city. :/

[T-U-P]

Wouldn't that mean the crossbowmen would be firing into their own heavy infantry?
no, silly Fried :D the heavy infantries would be crouched down while holding their shields (so are the archers that are reloading). the ones that are shooting are standing up so they won't shoot the infantries.

come on, they're common scene in movies :cool:

[Obcession]

"But then in the end, you lose the city. :/"

Hey, which one is more important, losing your key and most important and most clever strategist and general of your country, or losing a city? In those days cities were constantly taken and lost, so it's no biggie.

[swimmerXC]

Rome do have very formidable discipline and tactics. But they do not have monopoly of it.

In han China, crossbowmen are arrange in 3 ranks to alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank -advance). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks.

watch "Hero" when those crossbow mens assult that sword trainning place :eek:

[FriedRiceNSpice]

no, silly Fried :D the heavy infantries would be crouched down while holding their shields (so are the archers that are reloading). the ones that are shooting are standing up so they won't shoot the infantries.

come on, they're common scene in movies :cool:

Aha! Thank you, Punisher, I am enligthened!

[Obcession]

Don't they use a line of pikemen infront of musketeers in the 15th 16th (or whatever) centuries to protect the musketeers from cavalry charges? That is, until the bayonet was invented.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Don't they use a line of pikemen infront of musketeers in the 15th 16th (or whatever) centuries to protect the musketeers from cavalry charges? That is, until the bayonet was invented.

That was used in Europe. The Dutch also developed a tactic using a combination of a sort of mobile phalanx like formation for their pikeman with companies of musketeers. The musketeers would fire at the enemy from a range, while the formations of pikeman would close in on the enemy once the enemy gets within close range.

[coolstorm]

The Hans didn't have gunpoweder weapons yet. Gunpowder wasn't invented until the Song dynasty. Also, only Chinese officers and commanders wore iron breastplates. The Roman army actually had 500,000 at its height, although during the 3 Kingdoms period China has raised armies of over a million multiple times.

Gunpowder was invented during the eastern Han dynasty. But, it was only used as fireworks. The first time it was used in battles was during the Song dynasty.

[sino52C]

I think Rome may have superior training and discipline for its troops. It also has contacted many other parts of the world. China, on the other hand, has fewer contact with other nations.

[T-U-P]

the rome and the hans all shall one enemy: the Huns. from what i've learned, the huns almost destoried the rome while the hans have managed to keep them out of its boarder.

[Obcession]

That's what I was thinking. Many historians think what we Chinese call the Xiong Nu barbarians are Huns. China eventually driven them further West.

[pathfinder]

The following are a chinese crossbow from the Qin dynasty era, which existed before the Han dynasty. It has a range of around 300 meters if shot in the proper trajectory and can have a rate of fire of up to 7 bolts per minute when used by a trained crossbowmen. It easily out-ranges most bows at the time, but has a somewhat slow firing rate.

Tips of bolts are in a thin triangular shape in order to provide the best aerodynamic performance. Of course during that age there is no such a subject as aerodynamics but we can conclude that the Qin army adapted this shape from experiences on the battlefield.

[pathfinder]

The dimension of the Qin crossbow. I am using this as an example because Han crossbow evolved from this design.

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/images/xbowdiag.JPG

History department of university of Fudan in Shanghai, China actually make a replica of this crossbow few years earlier. The range and rate of fire are test proven by their students, not from the back of my arse.

[pathfinder]

Now on to weapons of the Roman legions.

http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images/SD1051_Roman_Sword.JPG

My personal favourite melee weapon, the Roman Gladius. It is a short sword designed to be used as a stabbing weapon during close combat. Roman legionnaires can safely launch their attack behind their large rectangular shields. Stabbing weapons have been proven to be more effective in combat that slashing or crushing ones. However, the downside is its length.

http://www.apocalypse.org/~hunter/images/scotland-meh/hadrian/0824_ballista.jpg

Despite the impression of many, Roman ballista does not actually fire bolts but rather stones. Crafted out of wood, ropes and animal sinew, it fires a stone the size of a human fist to a distance of 600 feet. These can be found at nearly all ancient roman forts and strongholds, however, there are very few instances where they were carried to field battles on record.

[rommel]

My personal favourite melee weapon, the Roman Gladius. It is a short sword designed to be used as a stabbing weapon during close combat. Roman legionnaires can safely launch their attack behind their large rectangular shields. Stabbing weapons have been proven to be more effective in combat that slashing or crushing ones. However, the downside is its length.


BTW way, The Roman Gladius (gladius mean short word in latin) is a copy of the Iberian sword used by the Spanish and by Carthage.

[Liberator]

I don't like Gladius. Too short.

[IDonT]

I don't like Gladius. Too short.

That why it was so deadly....

In the Gaulic wars, the Gaul had the big 3 ft sword, the Romans rushed them and with their sheild the gauls long sword became a liability. The Gauls did not have enough room to weild them.

[T-U-P]

I don't like Gladius. Too short.
yea, you like the sword of William Wallace, don't you? ;)

[Liberator]

I know short swords are deadly when 2 men are closed up.

But I still perfer a longsword, or better (2 handed).. :).

[Liberator]

In the Gaulic wars, the Gaul had the big 3 ft sword, the Romans rushed them and with their sheild the gauls long sword became a liability. The Gauls did not have enough room to weild them.

That, I know.

[bonmuno]

I think a shorter sword can also be swung faster

[Liberator]

I think a shorter sword can also be swung faster

Of course! Its light and easy to wield. Good with a shield.

[sumdud]

The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive; where the Chinese had better generals for knowing the art of war.(Was it out yet? Or were the generals just as............never mind, the Three Kingdoms haven't come yet, the Chinese generals were just as aggressive.......)

The Chinese had better missile weapons.(Just look at that crossbow, sweeeeeeeeet... Best shape I can think of) But did it penetrated the shields? And can the Chinese swords break the shields? If not, the Chinese are doomed.

And there is still the Pylum(Don't know how to spell it), but I doubt those will do much.

Then there is the numerical superioirty the Chinese had.

As for swords, the Romans had the edge. Long swords gave worse blows, but it didn't have a high RoF. The short sword, however, can be easily moved, manuvered, very good with shields as one said.

[J T Z]

Art of War is most definally already been written when Han dyansty has began. Three Kingdoms has nothing to do with SunTuz: Art of war. During "Spring & Autumn" and the Warring States, there has been hundreds of different school of thoughts and a lot of them have works on military planing.
When you say "The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive" thats true, and chinese generals are just like that. It doesnt matter how good of a strategist they are, and romans had great military strategist as well. But if you read what i posted in the thread about "best dyanstic military". It is not because of strategies that Han will defeat Rome but because of men power and technonlogy. Han has the most advenced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dyansty time. And Han have much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations. I used the Huns as an example. Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road", after that the Huns rampaged through europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.

[IDonT]

Art of War is most definally already been written when Han dyansty has began. Three Kingdoms has nothing to do with SunTuz: Art of war. During "Spring & Autumn" and the Warring States, there has been hundreds of different school of thoughts and a lot of them have works on military planing.
When you say "The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive" thats true, and chinese generals are just like that. It doesnt matter how good of a strategist they are, and romans had great military strategist as well. But if you read what i posted in the thread about "best dyanstic military". It is not because of strategies that Han will defeat Rome but because of men power and technonlogy. Han has the most advenced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dyansty time. And Han have much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations. I used the Huns as an example. Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road", after that the Huns rampaged through europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.

Yeah, but Rome was at the verge of collapse when the Huns arrive in Europe.


Has there been studies that shows if the Han Crossbow can penetrate the Roman tower sheild

[pathfinder]

Yeah, but Rome was at the verge of collapse when the Huns arrive in Europe.


Has there been studies that shows if the Han Crossbow can penetrate the Roman tower sheild

Roman rectangular shields are fairly thin to my suprise when I saw a replicated one in Seattle (around 1cm). However, their curved surface are excellent at deflecting blows from melee weapons. The thing weights about 20 or 25 pounds with brass carrying handle. Roman legionnaries can safely use their stabbing sword while staying behind the safety of their shields.

Back to the question of Han dynasty crossbow. Studies conducted in China have shown that the crossbow can effectively pierce through two layers of steel plate both 5mm thick at the range of 150 meters. That kind of penetration is only achieved with the British yew longbow. So the answer to the question is yes. However the romans fielded another type of round buckler made of iron at the time which the crossbow may not have enough power to penetrate through. The downside of the iron buckler is its relatively small surface area(around 20cm in radius) and it is not widely used by the Roman army.

[Inst]

Isn't this sort of like CSM v SM warfare? =).

Actually, I'm told the Romans have better morale, their troops are "harder". They're very muscular from heavy road work, and their society glorifies the martial virtues(Rome only got to where it was by conquering its neighbors, it was not innately an economic power).

The Chinese general has to be very careful. If he screws up or dies, the entire Chinese army will break and get decimated. As long as this scenario does not occur, the Han can exploit their technological and doctrinal advantages.

By the way, what's the history of siege crossbows? You know, the leg powered artillery crossbow? The first time I've encountered those were when I watched the movie "Hero", they don't seem to pop up a lot in the popular culture.

[IDonT]

Isn't this sort of like CSM v SM warfare? =).

Actually, I'm told the Romans have better morale, their troops are "harder". They're very muscular from heavy road work, and their society glorifies the martial virtues(Rome only got to where it was by conquering its neighbors, it was not innately an economic power).

The Chinese general has to be very careful. If he screws up or dies, the entire Chinese army will break and get decimated. As long as this scenario does not occur, the Han can exploit their technological and doctrinal advantages.

By the way, what's the history of siege crossbows? You know, the leg powered artillery crossbow? The first time I've encountered those were when I watched the movie "Hero", they don't seem to pop up a lot in the popular culture.


The Qin got to where it was from conquering its neighbors.
The Han under Wudi conquered and destroyed the Xiongnu (huns) and broke their hold on Northwestern China.

The Chinese military expedition under Ban Chao, with 70,000 men, reached all the way to the Caspian sea in 97 AD. The Parthians seek an alliance with them because they were being conquered by the Romans under Trajan. When the Roman's conquered the Parthian capital of Csitephon (sp), they were within 1 day march from Ban Chao's border outpost. After Trajan's death, the Romans withdraw...so did Ban Chao.

[Inst]

Chinese military history is filled with turn and flee actions.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Long swords gave worse blows, but it didn't have a high RoF

Wow Sumdud. You are a square. First off- you wrote rate of fire as RoF. Secondly, what kind of douche bag would apply the term rate of fire to a sword!?!?

[ordinary dude]

Well, long sword are much more deadly at arms-length, and short swords are very useful if you want to get intimate with your opponent. That way the Japanese samuri carrys 2 katanas most of the time, one long katana to attack and a short katana to defend and attack at short range.

[Liberator]

I would say that overall. Han China can win.

Reasons.

China has an army that can overpower the Romans in great numbers. China can supply all these soldiers with either scale or plate armours. While the romans can only supply up to tens of thousands with scale, chain mail and legion armours.

Chinese weapons include crossbow or maybe early Chu Ko Nu(s). A crossbow can pierce a thick wooden shield, and can also pierce metal armours and metal shields. Roman soldiers' ranged weapons are javelims, pilums, and short bow. (Slings???).

War machines used by the Romans are balistas that fires bolts -OR- rocks. For China, there are enlarged crossbows and bows that need 2 or more soldiers to fire. China also have stone throwers.

To against the Roman turtle formations, China soldiers can use fire arrows, or crossbows to pierce their shields.

Chinese shields are also big too! Some shields have a tiger or dragon symbols on them, which are rectangle.

Well, horses. Rome ALONE has less horse than China.

[Liberator]

Well, long sword are much more deadly at arms-length, and short swords are very useful if you want to get intimate with your opponent. That way the Japanese samuri carrys 2 katanas most of the time, one long katana to attack and a short katana to defend and attack at short range.

Short Katana?????? Learn the Japanese swords.

-Japanese long sword = Katana.
-Japanese short sword = Wakisashi.

By the way, Katana and Wakisashi makes me sick.

I think Katana can break when against a European 2 handed sword. BIG TIME!

[Liberator]

Katana is for fighting in 2 hands when encounters an enemy. Good for slash and chop, and well, stabbing.

Wakizashi or Wakisashi is good when you need your other hand to wield a weapon, Wakizashi is used when enemies is very near you. Better than Katana when stabbing.

Katana and Wakizashi in a Han Chinese versus Roman section???

[Obcession]

Short Katana?????? Learn the Japanese swords.

-Japanese long sword = Katana.
-Japanese short sword = Wakisashi.

By the way, Katana and Wakisashi makes me sick.

I think Katana can break when against a European 2 handed sword. BIG TIME!

They make me sick too.

So we have heard about a lot of the Han equipment, what of the Romans? How will the Han formation fare against pilums thrown at them, possibly killing many? (since they wear scale armor, and assuming the Romans could get close enough to use their pilums) How about siegecraft, How will Chinese cities fare against Roman sieges and Roman cities fare against a Chinese army? I think the Chinese would have an advantage in siegecraft, I'm not sure if mongonels were invented at this time, but to my knowledge Chinese architects built siege engines very suitable and powerful for siegecraft.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I thought the katana and wakibasih were Japanese. Why are we talking about them? The katana is supposed to have a molecular blade, and both Japanese swords are made with highly advance metallugury skills. The Japanese learned their metallgury skills from the Chinese, who also made very good swords, just in different styles and designs. Europe didnt' have metallgury technology until long after the Chinese started using it.

[Liberator]

So we have heard about a lot of the Han equipment, what of the Romans? How will the Han formation fare against pilums thrown at them, possibly killing many? (since they wear scale armor, and assuming the Romans could get close enough to use their pilums) How about siegecraft, How will Chinese cities fare against Roman sieges and Roman cities fare against a Chinese army? I think the Chinese would have an advantage in siegecraft, I'm not sure if mongonels were invented at this time, but to my knowledge Chinese architects built siege engines very suitable and powerful for siegecraft.

I think Chinese siege weapons are better. Roman balistas cannot destroy Chinese walls (If you see how think Chinese walls are).

Pilums, I heard they are very good. But how can they be strong when people use arms to throw spears?

[Obcession]

I don't know how thick Roman walls are, but Chinese walls, from what I've seen, are extremely thick.

Xi'an's city walls are about 5-10m x 5-10m, thickness and height. I've visited that city in such a long time ago I don't remember.

[drunkhomer]

ppl go watch da opening battle scene in da movie gladiater...really good movie

[rommel]

I think Chinese siege weapons are better. Roman balistas cannot destroy Chinese walls (If you see how think Chinese walls are).

Pilums, I heard they are very good. But how can they be strong when people use arms to throw spears?

Well, the Roman dosen't just have ballistas, their also have a catapult (the latin name is : onager, onagri) That was good in siege and could break thick wall, the Romans used to launched 20-35 pounds rock with their onagers.

The pilum, ah, that was a great weapon, think as a militarised version of the javelin used in athletism, the light one could be pitched up to 50m and the heavy is up to 35m, the heavy stay stuck in the whatever they hit and i think that moving with a 2,1m pilum in your shield or armor is not so great, assuming you're still in shape to fight... also the heavy pilum got this special handle fix that cover permit legionnary to uncover the opponent shield. When the pilum hit something, the tip stay stuck, and the rear, with an ingenious system of hinge, will be on the ground, the legionnary only have to step on this part that is on the ground and the shiled will be pulled, uncovering the target !!

[Obcession]

Well, the Roman dosen't just have ballistas, their also have a catapult (the latin name is : onager, onagri) That was good in siege and could break thick wall, the Romans used to launched 20-35 pounds rock with their onagers.

The pilum, ah, that was a great weapon, think as a militarised version of the javelin used in athletism, the light one could be pitched up to 50m and the heavy is up to 35m, the heavy stay stuck in the whatever they hit and i think that moving with a 2,1m pilum in your shield or armor is not so great, assuming you're still in shape to fight... also the heavy pilum got this special handle fix that cover permit legionnary to uncover the opponent shield. When the pilum hit something, the tip stay stuck, and the rear, with an ingenious system of hinge, will be on the ground, the legionnary only have to step on this part that is on the ground and the shiled will be pulled, uncovering the target !!

I know how they use the pilums, but how would the Chinese army fair against it?

[rommel]

I know how they use the pilums, but how would the Chinese army fair against it?

Well, It's easy to get close enough to use their pilum, advance in tortudoes to protect from the crossbow and reploy in the 3-lines formations after, it's would easily pierce the Chinese Armor, the light pilum, of 750-900g can kill anykind of lightly or unarmored trooper, the 1,5kg heavy pilum can even pierce the heaviest armor. And BTW, for chinese assieging Roman, roman did some great fortification too, don't underestimated them...

[TJJH]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but crossbow bolts went straight through any armour that wasn't plate, and could even pierce that when fired accurately enough.

Pilums didn't work against the Huns, and they wouldn't work against the Han either. Especially not against a complete mobile army like the Han were.

[rommel]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but crossbow bolts went straight through any armour that wasn't plate, and could even pierce that when fired accurately enough.

Pilums didn't work against the Huns, and they wouldn't work against the Han either. Especially not against a complete mobile army like the Han were.

well, the roman curved shield offer much more protection that you can even think about it in this time and their armor was good to, the roman "armora locata" was better than the heavy chainmails used century later by knight, pilum don't work against anykind of cavalry, don't forget that, and the Huns were only cavalry, not the Han army...

[Liberator]

Well, the Roman dosen't just have ballistas, their also have a catapult (the latin name is : onager, onagri) That was good in siege and could break thick wall, the Romans used to launched 20-35 pounds rock with their onagers.

Catapults, yes yes. I know Roman uses it.

Roman soldiers are disciplane. And they've got nice shield. I read on books saying that China got some good formations too with good shields.

[Liberator]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but crossbow bolts went straight through any armour that wasn't plate, and could even pierce that when fired accurately enough.

Pilums didn't work against the Huns, and they wouldn't work against the Han either. Especially not against a complete mobile army like the Han were..

I would say crossbow bolts can pierce plates, but not thick ones.

I agree with you on the pilum thingy. Chinese soldiers does have formations but when attacking, soldiers will just go anywhere on the battlefield hacking and slashing, I personally do not think Pilum will be any use.

[pathfinder]

well, the roman curved shield offer much more protection that you can even think about it in this time and their armor was good to, the roman "armora locata" was better than the heavy chainmails used century later by knight, pilum don't work against anykind of cavalry, don't forget that, and the Huns were only cavalry, not the Han army...

Don't forget it was the Han cavalry who drove the Huns from their capital.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Don't forget it was the Han cavalry who drove the Huns from their capital.

Han cavlarymen were drawn from Chinese living on the frontiers. They had to fight the Huns constantly, and also lived a similiar nomadic lifestyle revolving around the horse. Chinese cavalry were of high quality, not much different from the Hunnish cavlary. They fought with composite bows, spears, and swords/shields.

[rommel]

Han cavlarymen were drawn from Chinese living on the frontiers. They had to fight the Huns constantly, and also lived a similiar nomadic lifestyle revolving around the horse. Chinese cavalry were of high quality, not much different from the Hunnish cavlary. They fought with composite bows, spears, and swords/shields.

i understand this point but the Han army was not only cavalry...

[FriedRiceNSpice]

i understand this point but the Han army was not only cavalry...

But they had enough to destroy the Roman legions!

[rommel]

But they had enough to destroy the Roman legions!

At their apogy, the Roman Empire got a total of 24 legions, 16 cohorts in Rome (10 Praetorian and 6 Urban) and 122 cohort of legionnary garrison in cities. That mean aproximatly 208,920 men ready to fight. If all the units are destroyed, the conscription of citizen is an option...

[pathfinder]

At their apogy, the Roman Empire got a total of 24 legions, 16 cohorts in Rome (10 Praetorian and 6 Urban) and 122 cohort of legionnary garrison in cities. That mean aproximatly 208,920 men ready to fight. If all the units are destroyed, the conscription of citizen is an option...

That was about one fifth the size of Han Imperial army. At its height Han empire fielded 15 hundred thousand cavalry. Both in terms of numbers and weapon production capacity, Rome is left sucking dust.

[IDonT]

I would love to see a Chinese epic movie around this time period but without the fantastical martial arts.

They could have a movie about the first emperor and shows the ancient chinese armies in all its glory.

[FreeAsia2000]

Hi

When we talk about the Romans are we using the Western European meaning
for the term or the one used by the rest of the world ?

[TJJH]

We're talking about the Roman Empire which ruled most of Europe for centuries, then collapsed due to low birth rates, bad emperors and stifling bearocracy.

[PiSigma]

every major dynasty in the world had the last two problems, it's just not possible to have a good beauacracy for long, those breaucrats always find it way to screw it up. and there's always a few bad empires in the family. remember that the last roman dynasty was the Antonines or Five good emperors, which means they don't pass the title emperor to their sons, but proven capable men to run the country, such as Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. then the roman empire got screwed over by marcus aurelius's son, because Marcus had the bright idea of passing the power to his son instead of following tradition. btw for those of you who loves gladiator, the general did die in the arena, but the emperor didn't, he died like 5 years later.

[rommel]

every major dynasty in the world had the last two problems, it's just not possible to have a good beauacracy for long, those breaucrats always find it way to screw it up. and there's always a few bad empires in the family. remember that the last roman dynasty was the Antonines or Five good emperors, which means they don't pass the title emperor to their sons, but proven capable men to run the country, such as Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. then the roman empire got screwed over by marcus aurelius's son, because Marcus had the bright idea of passing the power to his son instead of following tradition. btw for those of you who loves gladiator, the general did die in the arena, but the emperor didn't, he died like 5 years later.

heu.. i think you should check your roman history book. I'll give you some important date about Rome and his history. (BTW way, I'll always give the Latin Name for people's name) Rome was founded in 753 BC. It started as a monarchy. In 509 BC, the Roman put the Republic in place. It's during this period that Rome destroy Carthage and Caius Julius Caesar conquered the Gaul. BTW, the Marius Reform by Marius (the uncle of Julius Caesar) which reform the Roman Republican Legion (were composed of drafted citizen) into the mighty Imperial legion (one of the first professional army) that will rule the battle for the next 4 century occur in 107 BC (also during the Republic) In 44 BC, year when Caesar where assassinated,it's the end of the Republic. So started a Civil War, on one side, Marcus-Antonius and Brutus with Cassius against Octavius Caius Julius Caesar on the other. Octavius won this war in 31 BC and installed the Roman Empire in 27 BC. Octavius changed his name for Augustus (mean the mightest of the universe in latin, title gave by the Senate) and take the "grade" of the First Citizen. Since the Empire, the power was pass from dad to son. But the son of Augustus died and he give the power to some else in his family. The first Roman Imperial Dynasty is called the Claudius-Julianus dynasty. I don't remember all the other dynasty but they (the Roman) sometime change dynasty is because that there's no competent people in this family to rule, so the Army put a General to the head of Empire. Happended lot of time, even sometime, emperor's where assassinated by his own bodyguard. So the late Empire (from 3rd Century to the end) the was not very good, but the it's still during the Empire that Rome was at her apogy, under the reign of Trajanus around 100 AD. PISGMA, u should recheck your latin history.

BTW there were effectively a Emperor who just jumped in a Arena and fought against gladiator, his name was Commodus.

For any other information about Rome, ask.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

They could have a movie about the first emperor and shows the ancient chinese armies in all its glory.

There is a LOT.

[Liberator]

Such as hero. (Part of it).

Fried Rice, u said alot, can u name some?

[sino52C]

Hero, the siege crossbows used were very interesting. I want to see their weapons fight the romans.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Such as hero. (Part of it).

Fried Rice, u said alot, can u name some?

Uhh.... I don't know any names lol.

[Liberator]

Hero, the siege crossbows used were very interesting. I want to see their weapons fight the romans.


Siege crossbow, OMFG! That can panetrate every roman armour! Nice 1 mate.

[sino52C]

the guy weilding the seige crossbow had to lie down and use his foot to hold the thing in place. he pulled on the string with both his hands.

Mistake, it was more of a seige longbow used in that movie.

[PiSigma]

rommel, my roman history is not wrong, the antonines was basically the last major dynasty of rome, commodus, the emperor who fought gladiators was the one in the movie gladiator and also the last antonines emperor, he's the only one that inherited his title from his dad, every other emperor in the dynasty had to prove his worth with deeds first. the three punic wars spanned about 80 years, first one rome got sicily, second one rome defeated Hannibal, only in the third one did rome destroy Carthage and salted its fields. there were three civil wars, first was Marius vs Sulla, second was Pompey vs Caesar, and third was Octavian vs Antony. which then created the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which lasted from about 14-70 ad, then the Flavian dynasty which was only for like 25 years or so. this is where the Antonines comes in and rules for about 85 years. after that the roman empire is non-officially split into west and east, it is also where i considered the empire as good as dead. Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus was the one who came us with the whole tetrarchy idea, by then the empire was already pretty much split. Flavius Theodosius I basically made it official by spliting the two sides between his sons Arcadius and Honorius.

btw.. for the people who don't know much about roman culture, romans only had 20 first names, no more no less, and only 10 are used commonly. so there's a lot of repeats for names. caesar is actually a cognomen or nickname that later on became like a last name. caesar actually means white hair

to rommel, i don't even know where my history text went, remember this from good ol trusty brain.

[McZosch]

So started a Civil War, on one side, Marcus-Antonius and Brutus with Cassius against Octavius Caius Julius Caesar on the other. Octavius won this war in 31 BC and installed the Roman Empire in 27 BC.
there were three civil wars, first was Marius vs Sulla, second was Pompey vs Caesar, and third was Octavian vs Antony
I count four major civil wars:
1 Sulla vs. Marius
2 Ceasar vs. Pompey
3 Brutus and Cassius vs. Macus Antonius, Octavian and Lepidus
4 Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra vs. Octavian

Between 3 and 4, Octavian had to deal with Pompey sons. Battle of Naulochos should be known.

The last war culminated with a major fleet battle at Actium. Marcus Antonius fleet was crushed by Octavians navy lead by Marcus Agrippa.

That was about one fifth the size of Han Imperial army. At its height Han empire fielded 15 hundred thousand cavalry. Both in terms of numbers and weapon production capacity, Rome is left sucking dust.
How did you keep them supplied? How can you command them on a battle-field? On what kind of terrain will the fight occur?

In forrests like in europe, cavalry and crossbows are pretty useless. Imperial roman legions were capable of marching nearly soundless, attacking at once with overwhelming force and huge psychological impact.

On a wide open plain, cavalry has many benefits.

It's always the question, what an army is designed to do.

Btw, Rome was not destroyed by huns. It was destroyed by Goths living inside roman borders.

[PiSigma]

i agree with mczosch, near the end of the roman empire, due to low birth rates, and too many skirmishes, much of the roman legions were replaced by germans. one of the top generals was actually german, can't rmemeber name. but his first loyalty was not to rome, and neither was the soldiers.

[FreeAsia2000]

We're talking about the Roman Empire which ruled most of Europe for centuries, then collapsed due to low birth rates, bad emperors and stifling bearocracy.

Actually the Roman empire split into two. The Western section came under the leadership of christian fundamentalists and declined.

The Eastern roman empire continued but was not acknowledged as truly Roman by the western europeans partly out of jealousy and spite but also because of different religious power bases.

I don't think Roman armies were all that good except when they were fighting in Europe. Mostly because the Europeans were disorganised. They kept on losing pretty consistently against any army from Asia.

my ancestors defeated the romans... :)
can anybody guess which famous war...give you a clue...the romans were really really badly defeated
like

[IDonT]

Actually the Roman empire split into two. The Western section came under the leadership of christian fundamentalists and declined.

The Eastern roman empire continued but was not acknowledged as truly Roman by the western europeans partly out of jealousy and spite but also because of different religious power bases.

I don't think Roman armies were all that good except when they were fighting in Europe. Mostly because the Europeans were disorganised. They kept on losing pretty consistently against any army from Asia.

my ancestors defeated the romans... :)
can anybody guess which famous war...give you a clue...the romans were really really badly defeated
like

The byzantines (eastern Romans) lasted until the 1400's.

What is your defination of Asia?

I would assume, Parthia. In that case it was true. In the battle of Carhae, 10,000 parthians slaughtered 40,000 romans. This was partly due to the ineptitude of its commander, Crassus.

When the Romans attacked again under Trajan in 110 AD, they beat the Parthians and captured their capital Csitephon. After Trajan died, the next emperor Hadrian abandoned his conquest.

[stonewind]

After the Parthains defeated Rome, there were rumors that parthians took romans into there ranks and even sold some to the mongols as mercenaries. The reason they did not go back to rome besides the long journey was that they would never be accepted after such a loss in battle. When the chinese were kicking Siung Niu butt in kazakhtan( when the Siung Niu were controlling the silk road) A chinese general named Tu Mo reported seeing yellow haired warriors in the enemies ranks.

As for romans being split in two. I believe the other half was in Russia, It was then called the last stand of rome. The dispute came from the pope and the east orthodox church, one would acknowledge themselves as roman but since the romans started in rome...

[FreeAsia2000]

The byzantines (eastern Romans) lasted until the 1400's.

What is your defination of Asia?

I would assume, Parthia. In that case it was true. In the battle of Carhae, 10,000 parthians slaughtered 40,000 romans. This was partly due to the ineptitude of its commander, Crassus.

When the Romans attacked again under Trajan in 110 AD, they beat the Parthians and captured their capital Csitephon. After Trajan died, the next emperor Hadrian abandoned his conquest.

:) well done...actually the Parthians lost because my ancestors would no
longer support them. By the time of Trajan the Parthian rulers had come to ape all the evil tyranny of the Romans.

Stonewind the Roman empire was NEVER russian. The Russians decided that they were the inheritors of the Roman empire and named their rulers Czars but nobody really accepted their claim.

The Roman empire was finally destroyed by Muslim armies in the 1400's in which my ancestors took part...so you see Trajan lost. :)

[IDonT]

:) well done...actually the Parthians lost because my ancestors would no
longer support them. By the time of Trajan the Parthian rulers had come to ape all the evil tyranny of the Romans.

Stonewind the Roman empire was NEVER russian. The Russians decided that they were the inheritors of the Roman empire and named their rulers Czars but nobody really accepted their claim.

The Roman empire was finally destroyed by Muslim armies in the 1400's in which my ancestors took part...so you see Trajan lost. :)

It was the Ottomans who finally conquered Constantinople.

[FreeAsia2000]

It was the Ottomans who finally conquered Constantinople.

:rolleyes:

thinking like a westerner...always obsessed with race.

it was a muslim army composed of many races led by ottomani
turks who's leader was the khaliph.

my ancestors thus took part in the war that finally ended the evil
that was Rome.

so who won ?

[IDonT]

:rolleyes:

thinking like a westerner...always obsessed with race.

it was a muslim army composed of many races led by ottomani
turks who's leader was the khaliph.

my ancestors thus took part in the war that finally ended the evil
that was Rome.

so who won ?


Not obsessed with race. Just pointing out who defeated who.

Rome was as evil in its day as all other empires.

[DVDR]

Romans could not solve a problem which is after the sword queeches, the iron sword became really soft, could be snapped easyily. therefore romans had short swords instead of long swords, (otherwise, snap... :eek: )

But Han had some technology, such as tempering and Point hardening, which was very helpful. Chinese solders could have a iron sword around 60-80 cm long, and it is the best length for fighting.

Also the Hardness of Romans weapons were around 100-400 HV (normally, short sword was around 200 something, the hardest was a knife, aroudn 700 HV.

people found some iron sword during the Warring states, the hardness up to 560 HV
Hardness of Qin's bronze Sword were around 150-300 Hv
Hardness of Han's iron Sword were around 500-1200 Hv.



And i can tell u guys what kind of tactics did huns use to aginst Roman's and Han'
They fire lots of the arrows to the air, therefore Romans use their shield to guard top of themself. at same time some Huns fire horizontally. Then use cavalry to RUSH to the Romans.

But Han's had a weapon called wu gang che. 6 metre long, 4.2 m wide (might be smaller. ) pikes were in the front of it and big shield on the top and sides, and also, it can carry a few crossbow man as well.
In the battles, Han placed Wu gang che in a circle or build a defense line,Use crossbow man to defend and cavalary rushed to Huns base camp.

Crossbow man had different version of croosbow as well. They are called one shi, 2 shi up to 10 shi. ( one shi equals to the force is need to left up around a mass of 30 Kg )
from range of 300- 800 meters.

[Liberator]

Han Chinese - Missile weapons. Good cavalries, armours for every soldier, overwhelming numbers, smart and strategic generals.

Romans - Great formations and disciplane soldiers. Dunno more.

[IDonT]

Han Chinese - Missile weapons. Good cavalries, armours for every soldier, overwhelming numbers, smart and strategic generals.

Romans - Great formations and disciplane soldiers. Dunno more.

Rome had discipline professional soldiers, career generals, and the best heavy infantry in the world at that time.

In order to beat them, the Parthians use their composite bows and refrain from closing in on them. Once the legionaries got you within melee, they will most likely have won.

[Liberator]

Rome had discipline professional soldiers, career generals, and the best heavy infantry in the world at that time.

Yeah, they are soo good in fighting barbarians without good armour and with lower pop...

[T-U-P]

this thread is still alive?! LOL

are you guys just keep stating the same things over and over again?

[PiSigma]

career general <---- now that is what i call obvious. every military of any empire have career generals. in fact, most generals are there because they have a good record in fighting and have good knowledge of controlling troops and tactics/strategy. it's only the lower troopers that's usually conscript. even in tribes, the military leaders are more knowledgable in warfare than the new warrior.

[IDonT]

career general <---- now that is what i call obvious. every military of any empire have career generals. in fact, most generals are there because they have a good record in fighting and have good knowledge of controlling troops and tactics/strategy. it's only the lower troopers that's usually conscript. even in tribes, the military leaders are more knowledgable in warfare than the new warrior.


I don't recall if Rome had any conscript armies at its height.
The legionairs were professional soldiers and served for about 20 years.
The auxilia were also professional soldiers but were not Roman citizens. Citizenship were given at the end of service.

Han China had both a core professional army and used constription to bolster its ranks. This facilitated massive numbers and coupled with the ease of use of the crossbow, have a lethal army.

My question is, how well can the Han Heavy infantry keep the legionaries at bay from the crossbowman?

[Liberator]

My question is, how well can the Han Heavy infantry keep the legionaries at bay from the crossbowman?

Well, legionaries' turtle formations are against missiles and hackings. But can be panetrated by Crossbow.

I suggest, a book borrowed from the library about Chinese crossbow and missile weapons aswell as "The arrow storm" will help.

If the Legionaires get up close, its not that China will lose the battle, China has great cavalries that can tramble Romans. Just like the Germans. China has soldiers with high shield and short swords as well. Well up close, the battle will be a rubbish on both sides, the formations will spread.

[IDonT]

Well, legionaries' turtle formations are against missiles and hackings. But can be panetrated by Crossbow.

I suggest, a book borrowed from the library about Chinese crossbow and missile weapons aswell as "The arrow storm" will help.

If the Legionaires get up close, its not that China will lose the battle, China has great cavalries that can tramble Romans. Just like the Germans. China has soldiers with high shield and short swords as well. Well up close, the battle will be a rubbish on both sides, the formations will spread.


The Roman Legionaries were very good. Once both armies made contact, the Crossbow will be neutralize, unless you also want to shoot your own men. If I were a Roman General that is what I would do. Reach the Chinese line as fast as possible.

Cavalry at this time were not as effective without stirrups, the Roman Legions have enough discipline to not break during a cavalry charge. Unless you are talking about horse archers.

[Sun Wu Kong]

I think at this time, the Han army is the most powerful army in the world. If any Roman army meet a Han army you can be sure they will lose mostly every battle.

The Han army has the best crossbows in the world. Very powerful, can pierce all type of armor even the heaviest and have a range of 260m. High precision, no match particularly when use by cavalery and chariots. Very good rate for a crossbow.
Roman infantery will suffer very high heavy causualties because they are very slow (no need to talk when they use the turtle formation) even when they charge. Before they can reach the Han infantry they must face the charge of the Han cavalery and chariots.

The Han use a more modern tactics because of major role of the cavalery and chariots in the battlefield and their number are far bigger the roman cavalery.

[Liberator]

The Roman Legionaries were very good. Once both armies made contact, the Crossbow will be neutralize, unless you also want to shoot your own men. If I were a Roman General that is what I would do. Reach the Chinese line as fast as possible.

Cavalry at this time were not as effective without stirrups, the Roman Legions have enough discipline to not break during a cavalry charge. Unless you are talking about horse archers.


Roman legions cannot reach the CHinese crossbows as fast as u think, they can only jog slowly, or else running faster will undisciplane their formations. Before legionaries can reach teh crossbows and war machines, many can die. If the legionaries get up close, Chinese troops do let the rangers retreat backwards and the second line (infantries) will engage the enemies in melee combat. Legionaries are great in melee combat and are very disciplane, but China out number the romans and its army can support tens of thousands of soldiers with armour forged out of iron. While Romans have chain mail, ringed plates, Chinese have plates, scale, and chain. China is the first country ever found "steel".

Chinese cavalries are to break flanks when the enemies are busy fighting other soldiers.

So I would say that China would win, judging their large armour, great number, good tactics and tricks, better cavalries that outnumber Roman cavalries, and missiles.

While Romans have NOT-SO-FAST and flexible formations when it comes to legionaries. They had to use turtule formations to reach the Chinese, or a single line formation. But which reduce their speed. One must be step on thee other. Other-wise, it might create chaos. Like formations and other things, Roman army were ambushed a lot in Europe. You cannot count on formations to win battles, it need luck, tactics, and numbers. Advantages for missiles, and use of cavalries.

I think at this time, the Han army is the most powerful army in the world. If any Roman army meet a Han army you can be sure they will lose mostly every battle.

The Han army has the best crossbows in the world. Very powerful, can pierce all type of armor even the heaviest and have a range of 260m. High precision, no match particularly when use by cavalery and chariots. Very good rate for a crossbow.
Roman infantery will suffer very high heavy causualties because they are very slow (no need to talk when they use the turtle formation) even when they charge. Before they can reach the Han infantry they must face the charge of the Han cavalery and chariots.

The Han use a more modern tactics because of major role of the cavalery and chariots in the battlefield and their number are far bigger the roman cavalery.

Aggreed on the facts, Sun Wu Kong. Are you Korean?

[Sun Wu Kong]

I'm Chinese.

[rommel]

Romans was the first country to introduce what we called battalion size-unit. By doing this, you give a lot of tactical mobility to you infantry on the field. Don't underestimed the fact the the tactical unit of the Roman was the cohort. For discipline, Roman discipline was extremely good, they were amazing (if we compare to a modern army, I'll say like the chinese or north korea disciplin). Depend in what year the fight is going on, in the 1st century AD, Roman soldiers were all issued the the famous steel-made armor and the roman chain mail,used before, was also very very good quality. Yeah by the way, Roman fought lots of battle against Germans and the Gaulies when ambushed or out-numbered, and most of the time, they (the romans, come out victorious), the discipline was the key of their success.

[IDonT]

Roman legions cannot reach the CHinese crossbows as fast as u think, they can only jog slowly, or else running faster will undisciplane their formations. Before legionaries can reach teh crossbows and war machines, many can die. If the legionaries get up close, Chinese troops do let the rangers retreat backwards and the second line (infantries) will engage the enemies in melee combat. Legionaries are great in melee combat and are very disciplane, but China out number the romans and its army can support tens of thousands of soldiers with armour forged out of iron. While Romans have chain mail, ringed plates, Chinese have plates, scale, and chain. China is the first country ever found "steel".

Chinese cavalries are to break flanks when the enemies are busy fighting other soldiers.

So I would say that China would win, judging their large armour, great number, good tactics and tricks, better cavalries that outnumber Roman cavalries, and missiles.

While Romans have NOT-SO-FAST and flexible formations when it comes to legionaries. They had to use turtule formations to reach the Chinese, or a single line formation. But which reduce their speed. One must be step on thee other. Other-wise, it might create chaos. Like formations and other things, Roman army were ambushed a lot in Europe. You cannot count on formations to win battles, it need luck, tactics, and numbers. Advantages for missiles, and use of cavalries.



Aggreed on the facts, Sun Wu Kong. Are you Korean?


Roman Legionairs are extremely fit and can no doubt cover 160 meters very quickly, I think before the Crossbow can fire their 4th volley.

Roman do wear either chain or plate armor, depending on the time period. Ceasar's legions wore chain while Augustus legions wore plate. Han infantry wore lamelar armor stiched together with hardened leather.

Roman Manipular warfare was extremely adaptable and flexible. This type of warfare prevailed against the Greek phalanx style. It will be easier for a roman officer to detached 1 or 2 cohorts to wheel left or right to meet the cavalry threat.

Roman formations were not as ridgid as the greek phalax. They were very loose, in that each men can fight as an individual but still retain the advantage of a formation. Faced with brutal crossbow fire, it is easy to imagine a centurion to lead his men to charge as fast as possible. Once contact is made, the men at the rear can form up.

[Liberator]

206 B.C. is when we are talking about.

Even if the legionaries reach the crossbowmen. Chinese are to let the crossbowmen to fend off the legions. A squad of infantry will begin to advance. Well, in many battles in history, China has been using tricks :D, and advantages. If legionaries advance fast, they will lose men, even if they move slowly with shield over their heads. The advancing troops are a major disadvantagement. Romans' tactics uses 1 huge squad of legionaries to advance, and then another squad following behide. 2 other squads behind the first 1. When they advance, its easier to blow a sum of men with large missile, bolts.

Again, China outnumbers Romans. Weapons are many, armours are protective. And cavalries are better.
Chinese soldiers are aswell very disciplane, u know.

You cannot see China as Brittanians, Brittanians are without armours, many of em, and well. LESS MANPOWER. Brittania's soldiers are not disciplane, the soldiers can be known as Chieftain, aswell as peasents. If Roman did not get sooo hungry for power. They would have lived longer.

I'm Chinese.

O yeah! Sun Wu Kong, that monkey king. From JOURNEY TO THE WEST.

[Sun Wu Kong]

Roman infantry may have the best discipline or best armor but a cavalery is always more mobile and superior to infantery even when they are far less armor. When you look at roman history they always lost battles when they combat an army with a very strong cavalery cavalery. German and Gaulle armies are mainly infantrery base and yes not very discipline but they have more fighting spirit.

Concerning the speed of the Roman infantry, they are very slow even they charge at high speed. Sorry but more you have armor more you are slow. If they meet a Han army they will take very high casualties before they can reach the Han infantery because the range of theirs crossbows are no problem to reach 260 meters. Also when you run 200 meter with full armor you already half dead because you are exhausted!

And the Han cavalery and chariot have equipped with crossbows and they have a far better accurancy in movement then bows. They are no need to engage closely the Roman army at first strike. You know the Mongolian was very successful again European army because of their mobility. The mobility of the infantrery is always far slower than the cavalery.

The keys to victories for the Han army are :
1/ Crossbows
2/ Cavalery and chariots
They are 2 major advantages than the infantreries don't a lot means to conter. They are mostly dead before doing something.

[rommel]

Roman infantry may have the best discipline or best armor but a cavalery is always more mobile and superior to infantery even when they are far less armor. When you look at roman history they always lost battles when they combat an army with a very strong cavalery cavalery. German and Gaulle armies are mainly infantrery base and yes not very discipline but they have more fighting spirit.

Concerning the speed of the Roman infantry, they are very slow even they charge at high speed. Sorry but more you have armor more you are slow. If they meet a Han army they will take very high casualties before they can reach the Han infantery because the range of theirs crossbows are no problem to reach 260 meters. Also when you run 200 meter with full armor you already half dead because you are exhausted!

And the Han cavalery and chariot have equipped with crossbows and they have a far better accurancy in movement then bows. They are no need to engage closely the Roman army at first strike. You know the Mongolian was very successful again European army because of their mobility. The mobility of the infantrery is always far slower than the cavalery.

The keys to victories for the Han army are :
1/ Crossbows
2/ Cavalery and chariots
They are 2 major advantages than the infantreries don't a lot means to conter. They are mostly dead before doing something.

For cavalry, it's not true, think of Hannibal and the Punic Wars. And you largely underestimed the stamina of Roman Infantry, they run (in this time the lengh unit was step, 4-5 step = 1m) 25000 steps with full armor on daily basis. As reserve infantry, I think I couldn't match the level of thoses men.

BTW Libs, you should study the Roman Manipular and Cohort Warfar system, it's more brighter than you think.

[Liberator]

BTW Libs, you should study the Roman Manipular and Cohort Warfar system, it's more brighter than you think.

Well, i studied the Roman army before the medieval times. I liked it. I think Romans' army are strong. But do you ever study Chinese army? No offense but, westerns don't study about ancient China as much as they would study Hispanian. And they leave behind the country that gave the global community with lots of ideas, and contributions.

Why do the topic starter think of this topic?

And why not talk about ancient Jap versus the Meso-Americans?:roll: :roll:

[rommel]

Well, i studied the Roman army before the medieval times. I liked it. I think Romans' army are strong. But do you ever study Chinese army? No offense but, westerns don't study about ancient China as much as they would study Hispanian. And they leave behind the country that gave the global community with lots of ideas, and contributions.

Why do the topic starter think of this topic?

And why not talk about ancient Jap versus the Meso-Americans?:roll: :roll:

In this case, you maybe know that the Roman Manipular-Cohort system is the precussor of our modern battalion system, the modern warfare is done on a battalion scale and that's in warfare something that we keep from the Roman.

[Sun Wu Kong]

You exagerate too much the capabities of Roman infantries. Even against Hannibal they were crushed at every battles except one the decisive one because Hannibal make a big mistake.

Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.

If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.

[IDonT]

206 B.C. is when we are talking about.

Even if the legionaries reach the crossbowmen. Chinese are to let the crossbowmen to fend off the legions. A squad of infantry will begin to advance. Well, in many battles in history, China has been using tricks :D, and advantages. If legionaries advance fast, they will lose men, even if they move slowly with shield over their heads. The advancing troops are a major disadvantagement. Romans' tactics uses 1 huge squad of legionaries to advance, and then another squad following behide. 2 other squads behind the first 1. When they advance, its easier to blow a sum of men with large missile, bolts.

Again, China outnumbers Romans. Weapons are many, armours are protective. And cavalries are better.
Chinese soldiers are aswell very disciplane, u know.

You cannot see China as Brittanians, Brittanians are without armours, many of em, and well. LESS MANPOWER. Brittania's soldiers are not disciplane, the soldiers can be known as Chieftain, aswell as peasents. If Roman did not get sooo hungry for power. They would have lived longer.



O yeah! Sun Wu Kong, that monkey king. From JOURNEY TO THE WEST.


I am not questioning the discipline of China's armies. A roman legion consists fo 10 cohorts. In battle formation 4 Cohorts will make the front row with a gap between cohorts, 3 more cohorts in the next line, and 3 more after that. From a top down view, it looks like a chess board.

The first 4 rows can advance at double quick time and still retain a semblance of formation. Though crossbow fire is very deadly, disciplined and motivated soliders have advance and broke through much more devastating firepower in history. IN the Napolianic wars, soldiers in formation have charged through musket fire and broke through the enemies lines. I have no doubt the romans can do the same.

The Roman legions have faced a disciplined armies also. Check their wars with Seulicid, Macedon and their Phalanx infantry.

[Sun Wu Kong]

Bref history of Roman cavaleries:

-220: Roman cavalery (light cavalery) represent 10% of the army

-105: introduction of range weapons in cavalery

98-117: introduction of heavy cavalery with spears

117-138: introduction of heavy cavalery with armor (horse)

193-211: cavalery will represent 20% of the army

306-337: cavalery will represent 25% of the army but proportion higher more in the East empire

Consequence:
1/ Cavalery will become elite force and the effectif of every legion will be reduce to 1000 soldiers

2/ Tactics
a) The infantery will adopt a more dense formation to defend against the cavalery.

b) For more mobility, the infantry will drop armor so will have only the flat shield for protection
Effect: infantery will be more vulnerable to arrows and big growth in casualties

3/ Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give more saving in scale miitary economy

[IDonT]

You exagerate too much the capabities of Roman infantries. Even against Hannibal they were crushed at every battles except one the decisive one because Hannibal make a big mistake.

Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.

If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.


Hannibal at Zama was out generaled. Rome's problem at that time was that it relied mostly on the brute forced of its legions. Against a general of the caliber as Hannibal, this is a losing battle.

Heavy cavalry at this time were not as effective as during the middile ages. The stirrup was not yet invented and the weight of the horse cannot be transfered through the lance. Once the initial shock of the charged is absorb, the now stationary horsemen are easy to unhorse. Ever try riding bare back on a horse, its very difficult.

This can be seen in the Roman Parthian wars, the battle of Carrhae, though a Roman defeat, first started with a Cataphract charged which was repulsed with heavy casualties for the Parthians. After wards, the Parthians used their archers to wear the Romans down and ultimately defeated them.

During Trajan's invasion, The Parthian Cataphract / horse archer combo was not as effective. The Romans have adapted but having more cavalry.

[tphuang]

I haven't read anything on this thread and don't intend to, so I will just say this:
1. Although they use different tactics and different types of troops, I think Rome would destroy Han.

2. The only really tough opponent China faced was Mongolia. Who later on proved to be quite ferocious in their migration toward Europe.

If we are talking about the pre-100AD roman army, we are talking about an army that constantly fought against insurgency, barbarians and other worth opponents. They had pretty much the most disciplined troop in the Ancient times outside of the Spartans. In addition, the weaponry used by the Romans were by far the most advanced at the time, since the Romans were great engineers. But if we are talking about post-200AD, that's a different story. All they had were mercenaries, they couldn't even defend against the Visogoths.

[Sun Wu Kong]

Sorry i make a mistake at point 3/
Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give a blow to the scale military economy of the Roman empire. Some experts say it is one of the reason of the end Roman empire.

[Sun Wu Kong]

You are totally wrong. The Han army have the best military technology. You must go to Xian to look at it. The Roman have far lower technology. And tacticly Roman army is only infantery based army. They will evolved to a cavalery army far later. So their tactics also. This only demonstrate the superiority of the cavalery. And already this demonstrate the more modern the Han army is!

Also Han army have 2 major advantages in their cavalery:
1/ saddle. Roman army will use it on the 1st century. The saddle give the stability to the cavalier particularly for archer. Han cavalery uses the crossbow wich is far more accurate and efficient (the best crossbow in the world, it is the truth).
2/ stirrup. No stirrup in Roman cavalery. It will be introduced only in 8th century in western Europe! Han cavalery have stirrup. The stirrup give the strength to the cavalier to break any infantery ligne.

[Sun Wu Kong]

After 200AD, it is not Roman army less good but it is only because their infantery based tactics don't fit anymore against cavalery tactics that are more modern. So they begin slowly to evolve to become a cavalery based army.

[Sun Wu Kong]

A look to crossbow

[tphuang]

After 200AD, it is not Roman army less good but it is only because their infantery based tactics don't fit anymore against cavalery tactics that are more modern. So they begin slowly to evolve to become a cavalery based army.
you have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Rome only got weak militarily because Romans stop enlisting in the army, so they had to get mercenaries. Mercenaries are always less effective than nationalistic home grown soldiers. Heck, when Alaric invaded in 406, even the Roman general was a barbarian.

[TJJH]

Put it this way, the Roman armies were infrantry based with heavy reliance on formations, and never really ever changed that until much later. China used to be like that as well, except with crossbows. Then along came the Xiong Nu, and all of a sudden China was outdoing the Xiong Nu at their own game.

[IDonT]

A look to crossbow


Hey is there a DVD or a show about ancient Chinese armies. I would love to see it. Do you know where I could get it?

[IDonT]

You are totally wrong. The Han army have the best military technology. You must go to Xian to look at it. The Roman have far lower technology. And tacticly Roman army is only infantery based army. They will evolved to a cavalery army far later. So their tactics also. This only demonstrate the superiority of the cavalery. And already this demonstrate the more modern the Han army is!

Also Han army have 2 major advantages in their cavalery:
1/ saddle. Roman army will use it on the 1st century. The saddle give the stability to the cavalier particularly for archer. Han cavalery uses the crossbow wich is far more accurate and efficient (the best crossbow in the world, it is the truth).
2/ stirrup. No stirrup in Roman cavalery. It will be introduced only in 8th century in western Europe! Han cavalery have stirrup. The stirrup give the strength to the cavalier to break any infantery ligne.

According to our time period, around 200-100 BC, China does not have the stirrup yet.

[IDonT]

Put it this way, the Roman armies were infrantry based with heavy reliance on formations, and never really ever changed that until much later. China used to be like that as well, except with crossbows. Then along came the Xiong Nu, and all of a sudden China was outdoing the Xiong Nu at their own game.


You are over generalizing. Both armies were a combined arms team.

The core of the Roman army lies in its heavy infantry, the Legions. They fight in manipules that are easy to adapt in changing battle field conditions. They also used Auxiliary for their cavalry (usually Gallic or Numedian) , archers, and supplemental infantry (auxilia). Then they have specialist (engineers, artillery, doctors, etc)

Han army is like that as well.
They have their core group (the crossbowmen). And it is supported by heavy infantry weilding sword and shield or a pike, archers, heavy and light cavalry.

In my opinion, the best combo was the one used by Alexander the great. Phalanx infantry and companion cavalry combo.

[aiguo]

i understand that u think that Rome was the greatest empire in the ancient times. that's because of ur education and the global trend. right now the western world basically dominates earth, therefore it's understandable that people think the western world has always been the most advanced sector of the world since the begining of human civilization, thus Roman empire has AUTOMATICALLY BECAME the most powerful empire in the ancient era. however, what the absolute majority of westerners don't know (no offence here and i'm not boasting AT ALL) is that China was the most advanced country of the world until about early Qin dynasty(about 1700) and occupied over half of the world's GDP until about mid Qin dynasty(about 1800). i.e. China was the richest and most advanced country for an absolute majority of its 5000 year history(it only started to fall at the begining of the modern age.
when we talk about comparing the Roman empire and Han China, well, based on fact, Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome(e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat)-no offence again. in term of battle capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again(e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by spears are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of manufacture one by one). Han also holds a numerical advantage. however, in the agricultural era, anything is possible in a war (leisurely armed peasants can overthrow a government much easeir than they would now). for example, the 'slave army' led by the famous Spaticus(correct me if i've spelt it wrong) has caused great trouble for the Roman empire. same in Han, the fact they we've got so many dynasties in our history is self-explanatory. However, i would still say Han could defeat Roman easily. i think most of u know that Han defeated the Huns in the Wudi era. however, i'm sure that not most of u don't know some of the remnants of the Huns after they had been defeated, had escaped west to Europe and had some battle with the Roman army, and they actually won these battles. According to this, Han should defeat Rome easily at the time. one more thing i have to say is that Han dynasty wasn't the 'peak' time in China's ancient history. our 'peak time' is the Tang dynasty which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdome era (three kingdome era is right after the fall of the Han dynasty). i'm not an expert in history and if u want to check out more Chinese history, search the web and i'm sure u would find tons more than what u think our history is all about.

[IDonT]

i understand that u think that Rome was the greatest empire in the ancient times. that's because of ur education and the global trend. right now the western world basically dominates earth, therefore it's understandable that people think the western world has always been the most advanced sector of the world since the begining of human civilization, thus Roman empire has AUTOMATICALLY BECAME the most powerful empire in the ancient era. however, what the absolute majority of westerners don't know (no offence here and i'm not boasting AT ALL) is that China was the most advanced country of the world until about early Qin dynasty(about 1700) and occupied over half of the world's GDP until about mid Qin dynasty(about 1800). i.e. China was the richest and most advanced country for an absolute majority of its 5000 year history(it only started to fall at the begining of the modern age.
when we talk about comparing the Roman empire and Han China, well, based on fact, Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome(e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat)-no offence again. in term of battle capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again(e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by spears are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of manufacture one by one). Han also holds a numerical advantage. however, in the agricultural era, anything is possible in a war (leisurely armed peasants can overthrow a government much easeir than they would now). for example, the 'slave army' led by the famous Spaticus(correct me if i've spelt it wrong) has caused great trouble for the Roman empire. same in Han, the fact they we've got so many dynasties in our history is self-explanatory. However, i would still say Han could defeat Roman easily. i think most of u know that Han defeated the Huns in the Wudi era. however, i'm sure that not most of u don't know some of the remnants of the Huns after they had been defeated, had escaped west to Europe and had some battle with the Roman army, and they actually won these battles. According to this, Han should defeat Rome easily at the time. one more thing i have to say is that Han dynasty wasn't the 'peak' time in China's ancient history. our 'peak time' is the Tang dynasty which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdome era (three kingdome era is right after the fall of the Han dynasty). i'm not an expert in history and if u want to check out more Chinese history, search the web and i'm sure u would find tons more than what u think our history is all about.


Welcome to the forum!!!

I am not desputing the fact that Han China was richer and more technologically advance than Rome. Rome's slave based economy was not as efficient. IN terms of philosophy, the Greeks beat the Romans. Although it is true that Eurocentric education tends to underestimate what China had, the reverse can also be true. China has never fought an enemy that uses tactics the same as Rome does. (Battle of Sogdiana not counting) Rome's first foray against horse archers ended in defeat due to incompetant leadership.

But what Rome was good at is warfare.

Wudi's war against the Huns vs Huns invasion of Europe is an unfair comparison. Han during Wudi's time was at it height. When the Hun came to Europe, Rome was on its last ropes. It's strength was depleted by corruption and constant barbarian invasion.

For a fairer comparison, lets compare them both at its Height. The Han army under Wudi, vs the Roman Army after the Punic Wars. We are comparing Han and Rome, not Europe vs China.

The main question is how effective were crossbows against the Legion.
I believe they can pierce the Scotum, but can they go through the Scotum AND pierce through chain armor? As history have pointed out, a well motivated and disciplined army can charge through determined firepower and still break a defensive line. One can only look at the Napolianic wars for this. Muskets and cannon fire were much deadlier than the Crossbow.

Another matter is:

1.) How fast is the rate of fire of the crossbow?
2.) How fast can the legions cover the distance between the two armies?
3.) What type of casualty figures can we expect before Rome can close the Gap.
4.) Can the Han heavy infantry hold out against Rome's Legion in order to keep them from the Crossbow men.
5.) How effective will the HAN heavy cavalry be with out stirrups?

[SampanViking]

A rather pointless topic in my view as neither Empire would have been able to maintain its power over territories so vast that they could meet and come into conflict.

I would guess that the Chinese Cavalry and Rome Heavy Infantry Legions would have had a deep and professional respect for each other.

I did hear about a year or so ago some academic speculation (I think it was quite widespread) based on Roman and Chinese records and some artifacts. Some Roman Infantry, finding itself on the losing side of an Intercine Imperial contest, escaped through Central Asia and; acting as Mercenaries followed down the Silk Route untill they came to the Chinese borders.

The Chinese were apparently impressed and offered the Legionaries a home on the Western Borders in return for guard duties on behalf of the Emperor. It was assumed that they settled, married and assimiliated over time into the native population.

An interesting tale.

[Liberator]

You exagerate too much the capabities of Roman infantries. Even against Hannibal they were crushed at every battles except one the decisive one because Hannibal make a big mistake.

Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.

If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.

I think Wu Kong is making nice statements.

Question, how much legionaries do u think will get hit and is unable to continue. before reaching 410 metres? of crossbow firing.

Hey is there a DVD or a show about ancient Chinese armies. I woul