Rome vs Han China

IDonT · Oct 12, 2005

Liberator said:
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 · Oct 12, 2005

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 · Oct 12, 2005

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 · Oct 13, 2005

I'm Chinese.

rommel · Oct 13, 2005

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 · Oct 13, 2005

Liberator said:
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 · Oct 13, 2005

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

, 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 · Oct 13, 2005

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 · Oct 13, 2005

Sun Wu Kong said:
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 · Oct 13, 2005

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:

Rome vs Han China

IDonT

Senior Member

Sun Wu Kong

New Member

Liberator

Junior Member

Sun Wu Kong

New Member

rommel

Bow Seat

IDonT

Senior Member

Liberator

Junior Member

Sun Wu Kong

New Member

rommel

Bow Seat

Liberator

Junior Member