Rome vs Han China

Originally Posted by BeeJay

Just a note: you're either professional full time, or not. You can be trained, but still not be 'professional', professional here meaning that you're getting paid for your services. You also can't be both full time farmer and soldier.



Not sure what you mean by 'correct'. Rome's economic policies might not be correct by today's standards, but back then they were perfect and very successful: wealth all over the empire, peace, social programs, whatever. Their economy was not based on robbing other countries ... if anything, they destroyed too much of what they conquered. Most conquered parts would be better of economically once Roman.

Rome's economy was based on slavery and expansion. The slavery meant cheap labor (and killed off any machine-like inventions). The expansion ensured an ever growing internal market, peace and prosperity, while at the same time allowing for a vast professional army, being active all the time.
Rome back then was a lot like big corporations are nowadays: powerful and growing, with an aggressive M&A department, no real innovative ability, but a good thing to be part of as long as you're not at center stage, at the bottom of the pile, or during a board upheaval. On the other hand, being part of one of its M&A candidates is a lot less fun, especially if you're in any kind of management position.

BJ

In history Han Professional armies divided their soldiers for several parts and each of which should be incharge of some military affairs.One part of them called reserve would do some farm work.The professional armies often defended in fortifications such as Great Wall.The professional armies of Han Dynasty got foodstuff instead of salary.But you can't conclude that they were not professional armies because they got less paid.
Rome established its great empire on the slavery.So all the man of Roman were more like soldiers.Since Rome had to send enough army to govern the expanded land.Maybe they never thought how to correctly govern the different nations.The slaves would rebel at last.Han Dynasty never regarded other nations as slaves.Other surrendered nations would like to fight for their new country which was named Han Dynasty.Different nations would be united as one part fighting for their freedom.So who would win the war?It is not a difficult question.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

... Rome established its great empire on the slavery.

As did many, many other countries. I would not be surprised if China in those days had a similar system, either with slaves or serfs.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

... Since Rome had to send enough army to govern the expanded land.Maybe they never thought how to correctly govern the different nations.

Actually, they didn't need their armies to govern but to protect those new border provinces against 'foreigners' wanting to invade those rich Roman provinces (or to go and add more provinces, of course).

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

The slaves would rebel at last.

There were some slave rebellions in the 1st century BC, but they failed, like so many other rebellions in so many other countries. The Roman Empire went on to grow and prosper despite those.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Han Dynasty never regarded other nations as slaves.Other surrendered nations would like to fight for their new country which was named Han Dynasty.Different nations would be united as one part fighting for their freedom.

Yet seven feudal princes revolted against the Han emperor in 154 BC. And as soon as there were problems at court, all the border lands and everybody that was poor revolted (1-23 AD). The same happened again after 100 AD. It seems that those others were more happy fighting for independence and for their own freedom than for Han emperors. They were often quite successful at it as well.

Of course the Romans had similar problems all the time. The difference though seems to be that Rome had set in place a society and a way of governing it that did not fall apart as soon as its leader was gone. Even its armies lived thru turmoils.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

So who would win the war?It is not a difficult question.

Easy the question is, but difficult the answer. That's why we're still discussing it I suppose (almost 600 posts). Although we do tend to go back and forth between discussing the war, the battle and the weaponry. So it's really 3 discussions at once (a good deal: 3-for-1!).

BJ

Originally Posted by BeeJay

As did many, many other countries. I would not be surprised if China in those days had a similar system, either with slaves or serfs.


Actually, they didn't need their armies to govern but to protect those new border provinces against 'foreigners' wanting to invade those rich Roman provinces (or to go and add more provinces, of course).


There were some slave rebellions in the 1st century BC, but they failed, like so many other rebellions in so many other countries. The Roman Empire went on to grow and prosper despite those.


Yet seven feudal princes revolted against the Han emperor in 154 BC. And as soon as there were problems at court, all the border lands and everybody that was poor revolted (1-23 AD). The same happened again after 100 AD. It seems that those others were more happy fighting for independence and for their own freedom than for Han emperors. They were often quite successful at it as well.

Of course the Romans had similar problems all the time. The difference though seems to be that Rome had set in place a society and a way of governing it that did not fall apart as soon as its leader was gone. Even its armies lived thru turmoils.


Easy the question is, but difficult the answer. That's why we're still discussing it I suppose (almost 600 posts). Although we do tend to go back and forth between discussing the war, the battle and the weaponry. So it's really 3 discussions at once (a good deal: 3-for-1!).

BJ

BJ[/QUOTE]
Seven feudal princes revolted against the Han emperor in 154 BC.
You have extended this trouble. Seven feudal princes revolted because their governors wanted more authority.But the civilian were unwilling to rebel.Han had no slaves. Emperor of Han Dynasty made taxes low and made farmer rich.Emperor Liu Che resolved this difficult question quickly by his wisdom。He commanded that moneybags should be reduced because of their cupidity. Plantation shouldn’t be annexed.Liu Che got a lot of money from killing moneybags which policy made country rich.Civilian would be glad to see that the aristocrats were killed and the glebe will be shared.So during the reign of Emperor Liu Che was a nightmare of rich man.Han didn’t have the similar problem with Rome.
Rome have no chance to win the warfare because Han horse troopers didn’t need face to them.Han could use motility to cut Rome logistics from their infantries.Logistics decided everything.You cann’t win a battle without logistics.Han horse troopers had once rided 1000 kilometres and steered clear of Hunnish armies for attacking Hunnish capital.50000 Han horse troopers killed 80000-90000 Hunnish soldiers.At the same time the main force of Hunnish armies were fighting with 20000-30000 Han infantries. It’s unwisdom that horse troopers abandoned flexibility confronting enemy straight.When the war begun you will find that infantries have no time to congregate.Horse troopers will annoy you all the time.You cann’t follow them also you cann’t run away. Rome Infantries will be buried in the narrow field attacked by bows and crossbows of Han armies.Don’t be doubt about flexibility what is taught by WarⅡ。

Rome also had many civil wars, besides rebelllions!

The main enemy in the West were, arguably, the "barbarian tribes" behind the Rhine and the Danube. Augustus had tried to conquer them, but ultimately failed and these "barbarians" were greatly feared. But by and large they were left in peace, in order to fight amongst themselves, and were simply too divided to pose a serious threat.
The empire of Parthia, the arch-rival of Rome, at its greatest extent (c. 60 BC), superimposed over modern borders.In the East lay the empire of Parthia (Persia). Crassus, a member of the First Triumvirate during the late republic, attempted an invasion in 53 BC, but was defeated by Persian forces led by Surena in the Battle of Carrhae. It was simply too far away to be conquered and then to be held. Any Parthian invasion was confronted and usually defeated, but the threat itself was ultimately impossible to destroy. Parthia would eventually become Rome's greatest rival and foremost enemy.

Also, considering that:

The Byzantine Army was the primary military body of the Byzantine armed forces, serving alongside the Byzantine Navy. A direct descendant of the legions of the old Roman Empire, the Byzantine Army maintained a similar level of discipline, strategic prowess and organization. For much of its history in fact, the Byzantine Army was the most powerful and effective military force in all of Europe.

, it was defeated by by the Turks, who earlier were unable to conquer neither Mongols nor Chinese- so how would the Romans themselves been able to defeat the Han?

A 2003 genetic study shows that some Turkish Anatolian tribes may have some ancestors who originated in an area north of Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period (3rd century BCE to the 2nd century CE). According to the study, some modern Anatolian Turks appear to have some common genetic markers with the remains found at the Xiongnu period graves in Mongolia...

Darkfishwang:
One good emperor is just that: a single person. Such enlightened individuals can also be found in Rome. The further away from the capital of the Han empire, the more localized power was held. So with a weak emperor those locals would rebel. If you look at history, peasants only rebel if their situation is really, really terrible. that usually means that they are serfs (medieval Europa, Russian revolution, 19thC China, etc). Peasants in the Han time did rebel, so that is why I believe Han was far more feudal than we like to think, especially further away from court.
Another thing: of crouse the Roman empire did have civil wars, but that was about who would become emperor, not about provinces wanting to go it alone or trying to replace Rome. Rome's economy was so good for its citizens that nobody wanted it changed that's why it remained in place tru all the turmoils and that is why a new emperor did not need to re-conquer most of his empire.

What the Huns were for the Han, the Celts and early Germans etc were for the Rome: 'barbarians' wanting to invade a rich country.

Of course mobility and logistics are vital to win a war. That is why those two were so important and well organised within the Roman army. Having horses doesn't automatically make your logistics better, your army more mobile or your battles automatic victories. Some earlier posts commented on this quite extensively. Roman armies had no more trouble with horse armies than with any other.


Bluejacket:
Be careful with Wikipedia. Anyone can start a subject page and then anyone can edit that all the time: you only read what the writer wants you to believe, no matter how much nonsense it is.
The song about Crassus and the Parthians has been played over and over again in this thread: Crassus was a fool and did everything wrong that you could do wrong. This was a single battle. Almost all others after that were won by the Romans: they continually defeated the Parthian (and Armenian) horse armies, even deep in the heartlands of those peoples themselves.

The Byzantine empire was indeed a descendant of the Roman, however its army was completely different by the time it was getting defeated.
I suppose the argument about "The Mongols defeated the Turks who defeated the Byzantines thus the Chinese would defeat the Romans" must be a joke, right? I know one like that, let's see: "Native American indians defeated the Vikings there, Vikings (Normans) defeated the Mamluks, Mamluks defeated the Mongols, Mongols defeated the Chinese ... yes: it has thus been proven that the hunter-gatherers of Canada's east coast would easily defeat a Han army!"

BJ

Mongols defeated Song Dynasty armies.A spy named Jia Si Dao who was the important minister of Song Dynasty.He was the military leadership.He killed many Generals of Song Dynasty for Mongols.He also held the report from the battlefront what made Song emperor had no time to prepare for the war.So Mongols defeated Song Dynasty though Song had fighted for 40 years.
Otherwise Song Dynasty would win the war at last.The "Jing Dynasty " had fighted with Song Dynasty for many years.Song armies almost destroyed Jing Dynasty in a battle which was commanded by famous General Yue Fei .Mongols are not so strong as you think.Mongols got new technology and military theory from Song Dynasty what helped Mongols conquered Europe.

Parthia maybe go from china During Han Dynasty.I have searched chinese history books.When the Hun grew up,some nations evev lived in Mongolia grassland were driven off from their country land.They moved to the west of china such as Tibet and Sinkiang or more far away from their homeland.The way of Parthia fighting was similar to Hunnish.So their ancestors maybe have the experience of fighting with Hun or Qiang([Qiang,an ancient nationality in China].

Nomad Nations such as Parthia and Hun would never be completely conquered since they can ride horse moving to everywhere.Rome was annoyed by Nomad Nations just like Han Dynasty had ever met.Han Dynasty succeeded in driving off Hun but Rome was destroyed by Nomad Nations .

There is a adage in China" when you want to destroy your enemies you should catch their leadership at first".Emperor Liu Che of Han Dynasty had never wasted time on the main force of Hun.Han Horse troopers usually attacked Hunnish capital at first burning Hunnish commissariat.Hun had to move far away from Mongolia grassland for avoiding Han horse Troopers and Hun brought a nightmare for Rome Empire as a present.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Mongols defeated Song Dynasty armies.A spy named Jia Si Dao who was the important minister of Song Dynasty.He was the military leadership.He killed many Generals of Song Dynasty for Mongols.[...] Otherwise Song Dynasty would win the war at last.
[...]
There is a adage in China" when you want to destroy your enemies you should catch their leadership at first".

So then the Mongols did it right, didn't they? Minimum bloodshed, maximum effect. If only more countries had used such methods, in 1938 ... and you name them.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Mongols got new technology and military theory from Song Dynasty what helped Mongols conquered Europe.

Well actually the Mongols conquered China and only won two battles in Europe (unless you count Russia). They did use siege technology and engineers from China and other countries, yes. But the plans to 'conquer the world' and how to do it were already decided upon before they had defeated China.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Parthia maybe go from china During Han Dynasty.

Interesting theory. But actually Parthians - who were not nomads - go back to the Persians, who go back to the Medes and Assyrians, who go back to the earliest Mesopotanian civilisations and the Scythians. Most of those were cavalry or chariot armies from almost the begining, more than a thousand years before Han or Romans.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Han Dynasty succeeded in driving off Hun but Rome was destroyed by Nomad Nations.

Really? I thought the Huns came back with a vengeance once the Han central authority collapsed. Don't know who those nomads were that destroyed Rome ... the empire fell apart in the 5th century, like the Han did 3 centuries earlier, although the eastern part continued to be a Roman empire for another thousand years. The different parts of the former western Roman empire fought each other for a century or two (not unlike The Three Kingdoms in China), during which time the eastern Romans (now called Byzantine) managed to reconquer Italy, north Africa and parts of Spain for a while. The Franks eventually got the upper hand and sort of united middle and west Europe for the first time, under Charlemagne ... but that was in 800 AD.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang

Han Horse troopers usually attacked Hunnish capital at first [...]

I never knew that nomads had capitals.

Maybe we should get back on topic. Roman vs Han. The more pro-Han arguments I see, the less reasons I see that they could win a war. I believe both would fend off an invasion by the other. But what happened if they met half way would hinge on the commanders. Depending on the feelings at each court, both would be able to replace a defeated army and try again, better prepared. I suppose that the one with the most motivated emperor to fight such a border war would win, but most probably both would seek some kind of peace arrangement after a few battles.
Those battles themselves are a more interesting topic to discuss I feel.

BJ

Song Dynasty cooperated with Mongols defeated “Jing Dynasty”. Mongols glassland divided into many pieces before they united.Not only Mongols also their ancestors were benefited from china.So Mongols was not strong enough to destroy Song Dynasty .Jing Dynasty benefited from a spy named QinGui so that they hadn’t been destroyed.The same thing had happened when Song armies fought with Mongols.

Hun had been driven off and a new nations grew up named “Xian Bei”.But during Han Dynasty Hun became more weak who splitted into two countries “ south Hun and north Hun”.South Hun surrendered to Han Dynasty.South Hun cooperated with Han Dynasty drived off north Hun.Han Dynasty lived with south Hun on good terms

Once the Han central authority collapsed which was divided into three countries.But when the nomad nations saw the Chinese armies equipped with white manteaus or armors on the borderline who would show their respect to the Chinese.armies.You cann’t get the respect from the nations you have oppressed so hard. Han Dynasty was a great Dynasty of which emperors always showed amity to the other nations though the nomad nations often invaded us.Do you know Silk Road which was a good example.

Jin Dynasty unified China taking the place of Han Dynasty.Their foreign policies brought enmity from nomad nations.When the new nomad nations became more powerful they invaded China again .China had been grown up untile Tang Dynasty .The new balance had appeared.

Emperor of Han Dynasty had never wanted to drive off other nations.The warfare caused by invasion of Hun.

Rome would invade Han country if Rome bordered on Han Dynasty because they must expand country land for armies.But peace will come at last just like Hun and Han Dynasty.Han Dynasty in history of China had never butchered other nations when they won the warfare.The Dead Hunnish were killed in the battle.The emperor Liu Che hated slaughter.Who would be judged if he killed surrendered civilian.So hate hadn't been inherited during the reign of Han Dynasty.

I'm not going to post on this tread anymore, but my final arguments are:
1. the Bysantine army was more advanced than the Roman one from ~1.5K years before, when it was finaly defeated in the Fall of Constantinople (and before that, by the crusaders who in turn were defeated by the Mongols in Europe and the Saracens in Palestine;
2. The Parthian cavalry was heavily influenced by nomads;
3. Despite their many efforts, Rome's sway never extended past of what is now Iraq & Armenia- that speaks volumes about their economic & military policies- they were stopped in the Middle East while the Han decided to stop in Central Asia.

To outflank the nomads in the west, Wu Ti extended the Great Wall and annexed a large corridor extending through the Tarim River basin of Central Asia to the Pamir Mountains close to Bactria. This corridor has ever since remained a part of China.

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/notes%20on%20Han.htm

The bottom line is, the 2 armies would have meet only if the Han continued marching West since the Romans were unable to march East. On whose side the peoples in between would have been, and would that have decided the outcome of any battles? I dare to say that those under Roman domination would have revolted and greeted the Han as liberators, given the history of upraisings there.
The comparison with Vikings vs. Native Americans is out of proportion- there were very few of them in the Western Hemisphere to merit serious discussion.

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

Parthian had sent their emissaries to Han Dynasty during BC138 --BC123 .I saw it in Chinese history books(the books was written by Ban Gu before A.D. 92).The kingdom of Parthian(called An XI in Chinese history books) .
Hun grown up in BC 206 and defeated Da Yue Shi(an ancient nationality in China).Da Yue Shi moved to the east of Parthian.

so what I had said is not a joke.Parthian maybe go from China.

Inst,

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

of course they had archers and large numbers of them and slingers, jsu tnot the unbalanced numbers that some are claiming for the Han. Halberbs vs manipultive legion, I favor the legion with it's close order drill, heavier armor,and 10 year+ average leanght of service of close combat experiance veterans.

Bluejacket,

Despite their many efforts, Rome's sway never extended past of what is now Iraq & Armenia- that speaks volumes about their economic & military policies- they were stopped in the Middle East while the Han decided to stop in Central Asia.

Thats a Red Herring. Rome repeatedly took the parthian capitol but decided not to invest the resources require dot occupy the land. Thier is no evidence for the Han or any other ancient Chinese force beign able to cross the silk road in force or penetrate into the subcontinent. Rome has a huge advantage on extended campaigns simply becuase they have far fewer mouths to feed. Military horses cannot survive in working condition on stepped grass and require grain as well as needing far more water than a man.

What the huns and later mongols did cannot be duplicated by the Han. No civilised nation can afford remudas of 20-30 horse per man and the sheer acreage of grass or gains that would require

The bottom line is, the 2 armies would have meet only if the Han continued marching West since the Romans were unable to march East.

Actually a shas bene shown repeatedly, Rome went where Rome wanted, although sometimes she couldn't stay there. The Han on the other might have decided to stop deciding everythign past a certain point wasnt Chinese, or they may have looked at the Gobi and the stans and the fierce residents and deicded any attempt to extend thier influence would be suicide

Really? I thought the Huns came back with a vengeance once the Han central authority collapsed. Don't know who those nomads were that destroyed Rome ... the empire fell apart in the 5th century, like the Han did 3 centuries earlier, although the eastern part continued to be a Roman empire for another thousand years. The different parts of the former western Roman empire fought each other for a century or two (not unlike The Three Kingdoms in China), during which time the eastern Romans (now called Byzantine) managed to reconquer Italy, north Africa and parts of Spain for a while. The Franks eventually got the upper hand and sort of united middle and west Europe for the first time, under Charlemagne ... but that was in 800 AD.

The difference is that Han fell to internal divisions, not because of nomadic invaders. Each respective successive dynasty or kingdom, tries to assume the "heir" to the Han Dynasty. Compare the Byzantine Empire and Rome at 800AD to where China is at 800AD, where China has entered a new golden age and superpower period under the Tang, which to an extent was as big or bigger than the Han. A Chinese capital will not fall to a foreign invader until the Mongols in the medieval period and even they only lasted for a generation before they themselves succumbed to another warlike dynasty, the Ming.

Originally Posted by Inst

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

The Great Wall was started in the Qing, but only completed in the Ming.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

The Romans were still around past the Han, are they? Zhuge Nu would have been effective against skirmishers.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

Of course the Romans have archers and ballistas too. Just that they are no match to what the Hans have.