Rome vs Han China

LifeSavor · Oct 29, 2005

Hello im new here so this will b my first post

Well i think that it kinda depends on where they r fighting on. The outcome can b different for each terran is theres no really a stronger or weaker faction. But if they were on a flat plain then ill say that the Hans will win.

Why? Becurz at that time ago, the Roman Empire was at its heightest lvl of greatest. It had a strong military that can defeat alot of ppl when focus and stuff. But its the quanity of the troops that fights decides the outcome. Romans have many orginzaned legions that can fight pretty well. China has many soldiers that can also fight but its strength is in arrows. The Hans might have the greatest number of archers serveing at that time. Thou the Romans can somtimes counter that wit there formations that makes them into a like a shell, protecting them from arrows.

Also the movement of cavalry plays an important part in battles. Since cavalry is the faster soldier in battle, it is very important that it can flank others fast to distruped them into confusion. And since the Hans has many cavalry in its army, it can out flank the Romans. The Romans r good at fighting in a manner but when outflank they lose moral quickly.

And thats why i think that the Hans of China will win

Liberator · Oct 29, 2005

There were some periods where Chinese technology was much more advanced than anywhere else in the world, but I don't think the Han dynasty is one of them. The Romans inherited the Greek knowledge of science and mathematics, which was the best in the world at the time. They also made some of their own inventions like concrete and the arch, which were not available in China until much later. The Romans had excellent seige weapons, and the average Roman legionare had much better armor than the average chinese soldier.

I think its before Han dynasty, China invented the earthquake detector?

PiSigma · Oct 29, 2005

welcome to the forum lifesavor hope u enjoy it.

the problem with comparing technologies is that no one really knows what each empire had at the time, people can always say they have certain things when they don't, or don't know that certain technologies are already available to them.

although that a lot of ancient battles are fought on a huge field decided by the opposing generals as to when and where, there were also a lot of ambushes, suprise attacks and sieges, so these factors also need to be considered.

rommel · Oct 29, 2005

JZXT said:
No, I don't think so.
You need to know high degree of math to build houses, structures, such as geometry, trigonometry, etc. Look at all the big buildings/palaces in existed in Han. China built arch bridges w/out any column support, and the Westerner tried and wanted to learn about its construction techniques.

As far as the armor goes, there is nothing stronger than silk.
If an arrow is penetrated the skin deep into the muscle, and if the silk is worn, then silk cloth will not tear and can be expand to extract the arrow without tearing away the flesh. Silk is light and very strong. The metal armor worned by roman soldiers are heavy and impede his movement and agility.

hey boy, i think you are confusing silk with spider silk... and i don't know if you saw those roman armor but I wear a replica once when I was in Italy, i feel more confortable in the roman armor than in body armor...

JZXT · Oct 29, 2005

hey boy, i think you are confusing silk with spider silk

no confusing here, boy. go and get a movie about the mongol empire where they are discussing the mongol armarment, they were discussing about the virture of the silk under layment the mongol wear. And silk existed in Han China.

PanAsian · Oct 30, 2005

I don't know if this qualifies as a new thread, but what about comparing Alexander the Great and Warring States militaries? Because of logistics and morale the Greek army under Alexander only went as far as India, but what if they went further?

RedBrigade · Oct 30, 2005

Alexander would not stay in China too long, simple Chinese tactic, cut their supply lines, even if not to cut but harrassment tactic to their supply line, causing Alexander to divered its focuses. Qin or any other Kingdom, only need to hold on the mountian passages to hold Alexander for 2-3 months, Alexander would retreat or find a food supply. then, when Alexander retreat, Qin or whatever Kingdoms attack or faint or harass. Causing Alexander to slow down. In the meantime, send small number of units, light cavalry cutting down all the food sources in order for Alexander army not to get any resupply...when the time is right use psychological warfare. What I discribed is only a simpliest military tactic that Chinese warfare used. By this tactic I don't Alexander has any chance. :nana:

FreeAsia2000 · Nov 2, 2005

I think we're falling into the typical Western European prejuduce in all these discussions that Rome fell in 476 Common Era

Here's a different view

n West European sources we find a separation between a "Greek East" and a "Latin West." In Roman sources this same separation constitutes a schism between Franks (a confederation of Germanic Teutonic peoples living on the lower banks of the Rhine who by the sixth century AD conquered most of France, the low countries and what is now Germany. ed) and Romans. One detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis for the schism which may be more profound and important for descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side.

The Roman Empire was conquered in three stages: by Germanic tribes (the Franks) who became known as "Latin Christianity," by Muslim Arabs, and finally, by Muslim Turks. In contrast to this, the ecclesiastical administration of the Roman Empire disappeared in stages from West Europe, but has survived up to modern times in the "East Roman Empire" the Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The reason for this is that the Germanic - Frankish conquerors of the West Romans (who became known as the "Roman Catholic Church.") used the Church to suppress the Roman nation, whereas under Islam the East Roman nation, the Orthodox Church, survived by means of the Orthodox Church. In each instance of conquest, the bishops became the ethnarchs of the conquered Romans and administered Roman law on behalf of the rulers. As long as the bishops were Roman, the unity of the Roman Church was preserved, in spite of theological conflicts.

Roman Revolutions and the Rise of Frankish Feudalism and Doctrine

The Franks applied their policy of destroying the unity between the Romans under their rule and the "East Romans," the Orthodox, under the rule of Constantinople.They played one Roman party against the other, took neither side, and finally condemned both the iconoclasts and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (786/7) at their own Council of Frankfurt in 794,

In the time of Pippin of Herestal (687-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, accordingto Saint Boniface, "shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans."2

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

mach · Dec 4, 2005

Crossbow that had great power was available in that period,and Han was quite proficient in it,so Han Dynasty would absolutely win the war. In addition,the archers of Han Dynasty could shoot with fire arrows and their enemies' morale would be lowered. At last,away the Roman infantry fled

T-U-P · Dec 4, 2005

you're getting into too many absolutes.
first of all:

mach said:
Crossbow that had great power was available in that period,and Han was quite proficient in it,so Han Dynasty would absolutely win the war.

Han would not absolutely win the war. the war is won by a combination of superior troops, superior equipments, and superior strategies. the most flexible of these three is the strategy part. a terrible strategy can bring an army of ten thousand well armed men to its feet. such tragedies did happen in history.

secondly:

mach said:
In addition,the archers of Han Dynasty could shoot with fire arrows and their enemies' morale would be lowered. At last,away the Roman infantry fleed

warfare is not Rome: Total War, so fire arrow doesn't equal lower morale and fleeing infantries. sure, it can cause horror, but a well trained army would not break away just because of some fire arrows.
*don't get into game discussions plz*

Rome vs Han China

LifeSavor

Just Hatched

Liberator

Junior Member

PiSigma

"the engineer"

rommel

Bow Seat

JZXT

New Member

PanAsian

Major

RedBrigade

New Member

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member

mach

Just Hatched

T-U-P

The Punisher