Rome vs Han China

Xiongnu were a nomadic people who lived in the central asia and generally based in persent day Mongolia. There are not much knowledge about their language or orgins except they became very active some where about 250B.C. At once time, they had controlled an empire which including the south of Siberia, west Manchuria, inner monglia, gansu and Xinjiang. Some histoic records say Xiongnu descended from the Xia Dynasty, they were descendants of Chunwei son of jie which is final ruler of Xia Dynasty, but this is just unproof records written by Sima Qian and some chinese historians.

In the warring time period, the xiongnu made many invasion into china and causing the warring states to built the wall to defend, but they suffered major defeated in the hand of Zhao and later Qin(one of the reasons the great wall was built is to defend against the nomads especially the Xiongnu). After they were defeated by Qin, the Xiongnu were brought together in a confederacy and chose a leader which called Maodun. The political unity made them very powerful, they expanded their empire to far north of south Siberia, crushed the Dong-hu of east mongolia and manchuria, conquered the Yuezhi at Gansu and recover the lands taken by Qin general Meng Tian. they also expanded west to Xinjiang and central asia.

By the time of Han, Xiongnu became very powerful and once again tried to conquered Han. emperor Gao led a military campaign against Modu. He was defeated by 300,000 xiongnu cavalry. Gao was forced to negotiate a peace settlement which included a Han princess given in marriage to Xiongnu and large quatity of silk, liquor and rice. The great wall became as a mutual border, but Xiongnu never take the peace treaty seriously. They continued to attacked Han and tried to gain more land and gifts.

After Sixty years of the peace treaty, Han had increased their strength. Han wudi made the first attempt to elimate the threat from Xiongnu. After ten years of preparation, a 40,000 chinese cavalry divide into four group made a suprise attack on Xiongnu, but only General Wei Qing sucessful defeated the Xiongnu and took the Ordos. In second attempt, General Huo Qubing led a force to the west and deeply penetrate the xiongnu of Longxi, he led a major defeated of the five Xiongnu kingdoms . The Xiongnu Hunye was forced to surrender with 40,000 men. In the third conflict, Huo and wei each leading 50,000 and 30,000 advancing different routes and forced the Xiongnu Chanyu and his court to flee north of the Gobi Desert. The xiongnu had continued to be very active until sometime of 450. Basicly they were assimlating into Han ethnicities, but there are some theory said some of the people in the west xiongnu kingdom went westward and became the Huns which pay a major role in Europe history.

Obviously, we're all a little biased toward the Han on this forum. So, instead of pointing out more of their strengths, let me mention a few things that people are either forgetting or don't know about Rome.

-SunTzu's Art of War
If you have read the "Art of War," you realize that it is just a collection of common sense that most competent Generals would know. If you read Julius Caesar's "Conguest of Gaul," or read about some of the Imperial campaigns, you'll see that the Romans used all of Sun Tzu's tactics.

-Being outnumbered
Contrary to what someone said earlier, the Romans were constantly defeating armies larger than them. Sometimes armies that outnumbered them 10-1. The Romans also made a practice of hiring large numbers of mercenaries to fight with them.

-Enemy Generals
Someone also falsely said that the Romans never faced a good General. Excuse me? Vercigetorix was a genius using slash and burn and hit and run tactis to try to starve the Romans out. Hannibal was one of the prototypes for the brilliant General. Mithridiates, Spartacus... Hell, they even fought each other repeatedly. Caesar and Pompey were both tactical geniuses when they faced off, as were Octavian's generals and Marc Antony.

-Calvarly
The Romans constantly fought armies that were great horsemen and constantly defeated them. They had several tactics for this, one of which was to NEVER FIGHT THEM ON FLAT, OPEN GROUND. They made cavalry fight them in forests, nullifying the power of their charges. They made cavalry run uphill after them, again taking the power from charges. They fought in 3 lines, again taking alot of the power from cavalry. As for Crassus' defeat in Parthia, read any Roman histories. Crassus wasn't a General; he was just a very rich politician. He wanted to be remembered as another Caesar or Pompy and so went to Parthia with his legion. It was the equivalent of Bill Gates mounting a force to attack modern day China. Ceaser even said of Crassus before he left for Parthia: "I can only hope that leadership of the army will be left to one of his sons or generals, unless Crassus plans to purchase peace from the Parthians."

-Technology
Are we talking about one battle, or a war? The Romans were notorius for taking the enemy's technology and improving it, using it against the people they took it from. Their balistas and onagers are improvements on weapons that the Greeks used against them. If we're talking about a long war, I would place good money that the same engineers that built hundreds of miles of Aquaducts and paved roads, flooded the Colliseum for mock naval battles, and gave the Roman people indoor plumbing before Christ was born would have turned those crossbows back on the Hans.

-Quality of Troops
This can also be considered with the outnumbering issue. Roman soldiers, being professional soldiers, were far superior to the Han's infantry. Their training and discipline was unparrallelled in the ancient world, and was very similar in many ways to things that today's special forces go through. One Roman infantryman would be worth three Han infantrymen, hands down. And anyone who has ever been in a fight will know that the close range of the gladius is a big plus. When the Romans fought Germans and Gauls, the close range of the gladius vs. the longswords of the Gauls and Germans proved to be a great advantage. They crashed into the German infantrymen and stabbed away, while the Germans were too close to use their weapons.

-Supply Lines
Where is this battle being fought? The Romans had much better supply lines than the Hans, and could wage war much further away from their places of power than the Han. In fact, Roman camps were travelling cities (literally) that could go up in a couple of hours, walls and all. If the Han invaded Roman territory, this would definitely be an advantage to the Romans.

-The Huns
Saying that the Han defeated the Huns while the Huns gave the Romans so much trouble is a lame argument, for several reasons. (1) If that's true, then the Americans should have kicked ass in Korea. Afterall, they defeated the Japanese in countless battles of WWII, and the Japanese had defeated the Chinese and taken Manchuria. (2)Most of the Hans battles with the Huns were during periods of Han strength. The Huns hit Rome in its decline, after insanely paranoid Emperors had assassinated all of their best generals, and the Empire split into two.

Ultimately, I can't say with certainty who would have won- I just feel that too many people's kneejerk reaction is to say "Han" without really considering the strengths of Rome.

And which Rome? Rome lasted for 1000 years, and the armies during various periods were vastly different from one another.

I think that, to have a true discussion about this, we need a situation. Pick a time period, pick a geographical area that they would have clashed in, and compare the tactics of the generals in power at that time, as well as the strength/make-up of the armies of the time. Otherwise this will just go 'round and 'round in circles, with no definite argument being made for either side.

Parthia under Trajan/Hadrian might be a good scenario. I'm sure there's some others...

welcome to the forum fenris, got to say one of the best arguments i have read, keep them coming. since i'm an engineer, i have to point out that those who design buildings are civil engineers, those that design machines are mechanical engineers. civil is based on statics, while mechanical is based on dynamics.. completely different things.

I would hope that the standard Roman legionary would be able to kill 8 or more Han soldiers before he's killed. Otherwise, with the 250,000, if each could take on 3 Han soldiers, then the Han would still have 1,250,000 men, a lot of which would probably be cavalry, the Roman legionary's worst enemy.

Seeing as the two empires were around at exactly the same time in 200 BC on up to about 180 or 190 AD, it'd obviously be in that area.

For every advancement that Rome made using Chinese technology, the Chinese would turn around and improve just as much. The two empires were both extremely adaptable to technology, so using the "Rome would take the Chinese crossbow and improve it" argument is kind of pointless. Also, unless Rome somehow stole the secrets of Chinese metalurgy, managed to apply it to all of their weapons and legions, etc etc during the campaign (basically re-making every soldier's weapon and armor), then they're probably doomed. Chinese bronze was as strong as Roman iron, and bronze wasn't even used in weapons or armor much during the time period we're discussing. This is also ignoring that Chinese had discovered the art of making steel (or so I've read on the board) during this time. Also, stop with the "the gladius vs longsword" thing because the Chinese didn't use two-handed swords much, if at all. The Chinese broadsword is a single-handed weapon and it's a very lethal one, I might add. There's also a wider array of weaponry than just a sword on the Chinese side. As to where Romans might have a few spearmen amongst their ranks (I think the Triarri[sp?] of the early legions were the only ones that used spears for the most part), Chinese would have many spearmen, early halberdiers, etc to go along with their swordsmen and their cavalry.

European nations during the time of Rome weren't very versatile when it came to units. It was mostly either swords or spears, and the most common spear was the sarissa which was used by the various Greek factions.

The most likely scenario would be Rome somehow meeting China and deciding to attempt to invade the Han Dynasty, seeing as the Chinese at that time were still isolationists for the most part. If the Han wanted to expand their borders beyond what they had, they would've done it, don't you think? They were aware of Romans, they were aware of Parthia, they had the silk road... c'mon.

I've spent a lot of time studying both of these great empires (although I don't know much about the early Han. I'm more interested in the late han/three kingdoms era) so my opinion isn't just mindlessly biased. I've already said that Rome was a great empire, it was a very technologically advanced empire, etc. The Han Dynasty just had more troops, better crafting skills, apparently a better economy, and better weaponry. Roman armies were too one-dimensional compared to the armies of the Han.

Oh, and I can assure you that Rome isn't the only faction capable of paying a bunch of mercenaries to fight for them.

Fenris said:

-SunTzu's Art of War
If you have read the "Art of War," you realize that it is just a collection of common sense that most competent Generals would know. If you read Julius Caesar's "Conguest of Gaul," or read about some of the Imperial campaigns, you'll see that the Romans used all of Sun Tzu's tactics.

Click to expand...

You know nothing about chinese military tactics yet.
1. Sun Tze's Art of War.
2. Sun bin's Art of War.
3. Wu Zi's Art of War.
4..Wei Liao Zi's Art of War.
5. Lu Wang's The six Strategy.
6. Huang Shi Gong's 3 Strategy.
7. The thirty-six Strategies.
These are just some examples of Art of War that have been around 2000 years in China.

-Being outnumbered
Contrary to what someone said earlier, the Romans were constantly defeating armies larger than them. Sometimes armies that outnumbered them 10-1. The Romans also made a practice of hiring large numbers of mercenaries to fight with them.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt Roman's acheivement, but please provide examples.

-Enemy Generals
Someone also falsely said that the Romans never faced a good General. Excuse me? Vercigetorix was a genius using slash and burn and hit and run tactis to try to starve the Romans out. Hannibal was one of the prototypes for the brilliant General. Mithridiates, Spartacus... Hell, they even fought each other repeatedly. Caesar and Pompey were both tactical geniuses when they faced off, as were Octavian's generals and Marc Antony.

Click to expand...

I don't see Vercigetorix was a genius, his rebellion against Romans only lasted shortly and nothing he did impress me much. Mithridiates lost every major war with Roman, even Lucullius defeated him many times. Spartacus could be regard as a genius at military strategy in a war, but he was greatly placed as disadvantage in numbers and supplies. But I would want to know why he made the mistake to turn south, this was a very bad move.

-Calvarly
The Romans constantly fought armies that were great horsemen and constantly defeated them. They had several tactics for this, one of which was to NEVER FIGHT THEM ON FLAT, OPEN GROUND. They made cavalry fight them in forests, nullifying the power of their charges. They made cavalry run uphill after them, again taking the power from charges. They fought in 3 lines, again taking alot of the power from cavalry. As for Crassus' defeat in Parthia, read any Roman histories. Crassus wasn't a General; he was just a very rich politician. He wanted to be remembered as another Caesar or Pompy and so went to Parthia with his legion. It was the equivalent of Bill Gates mounting a force to attack modern day China. Ceaser even said of Crassus before he left for Parthia: "I can only hope that leadership of the army will be left to one of his sons or generals, unless Crassus plans to purchase peace from the Parthians."

Click to expand...

I would say the Giongnu in central Asia are the best horsemen at the time. Well, Han had many other ways to fight and Roman will be outnumber, so your strategy won't work against Han.

Don't matter. The Parthia almost defeated the Romans, so Romans were not as good as you say.

-Technology
Are we talking about one battle, or a war? The Romans were notorius for taking the enemy's technology and improving it, using it against the people they took it from. Their balistas and onagers are improvements on weapons that the Greeks used against them. If we're talking about a long war, I would place good money that the same engineers that built hundreds of miles of Aquaducts and paved roads, flooded the Colliseum for mock naval battles, and gave the Roman people indoor plumbing before Christ was born would have turned those crossbows back on the Hans.

Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous statement. What made you think Han would not learn from Romans. Hans had learned a lot about Calvery from Giongnu, that was the reason why Han defeated the Giongnu. I don't even want to say more.

-Quality of Troops
This can also be considered with the outnumbering issue. Roman soldiers, being professional soldiers, were far superior to the Han's infantry. Their training and discipline was unparrallelled in the ancient world, and was very similar in many ways to things that today's special forces go through. One Roman infantryman would be worth three Han infantrymen, hands down. And anyone who has ever been in a fight will know that the close range of the gladius is a big plus. When the Romans fought Germans and Gauls, the close range of the gladius vs. the longswords of the Gauls and Germans proved to be a great advantage. They crashed into the German infantrymen and stabbed away, while the Germans were too close to use their weapons.

Click to expand...

Well, Han infantry did have some disadvantages, but the crossbow will be deathly against the Romans. The elite forces of Hans were well train, so don't say Romans had the best train in the ancient world. You don't know, so don't assumpt too much. In the conflict between Giongnu and Hans, Han had managed to defeat the Giongnu which far less number. Giongnu were very capable people, so don't try to underestimate the Han.

-Supply Lines
Where is this battle being fought? The Romans had much better supply lines than the Hans, and could wage war much further away from their places of power than the Han. In fact, Roman camps were travelling cities (literally) that could go up in a couple of hours, walls and all. If the Han invaded Roman territory, this would definitely be an advantage to the Romans.

Click to expand...

That is crap. How do you know who have the better supply lines. Give me proofs before you make this board statement. Hans had gone to deeply into Giongnu territory of the Gobi desert to defeat the Giongnu, that is thousand of miles we are talking about.

-The Huns
Saying that the Han defeated the Huns while the Huns gave the Romans so much trouble is a lame argument, for several reasons. (1) If that's true, then the Americans should have kicked ass in Korea. Afterall, they defeated the Japanese in countless battles of WWII, and the Japanese had defeated the Chinese and taken Manchuria. (2)Most of the Hans battles with the Huns were during periods of Han strength. The Huns hit Rome in its decline, after insanely paranoid Emperors had assassinated all of their best generals, and the Empire split into two.

Click to expand...

Well, I never did. But about the Hans defeated the Huns at their height, that is true. It also is true that he Huns were very weak when they arrived in Rome, so Rome should be able to defeat. I would say Huns strength were only a tenth of what they had in China by the time they got to Rome. In the early days, Huns could moblie some 300,000 troops to fight the Hans.

Ultimately, I can't say with certainty who would have won- I just feel that too many people's kneejerk reaction is to say "Han" without really considering the strengths of Rome.

Click to expand...

I agreed, but you are also give too much credit to Romans also.

And which Rome? Rome lasted for 1000 years, and the armies during various periods were vastly different from one another.

Click to expand...

That I don't know, choose the time you want as long as both of them still are very capable.

I think that, to have a true discussion about this, we need a situation. Pick a time period, pick a geographical area that they would have clashed in, and compare the tactics of the generals in power at that time, as well as the strength/make-up of the armies of the time. Otherwise this will just go 'round and 'round in circles, with no definite argument being made for either side.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Parthia under Trajan/Hadrian might be a good scenario. I'm sure there's some others...

Click to expand...

Yes, do try to come up one good scenario.

Technology
Are we talking about one battle, or a war? The Romans were notorius for taking the enemy's technology and improving it, using it against the people they took it from. Their balistas and onagers are improvements on weapons that the Greeks used against them. If we're talking about a long war, I would place good money that the same engineers that built hundreds of miles of Aquaducts and paved roads, flooded the Colliseum for mock naval battles, and gave the Roman people indoor plumbing before Christ was born would have turned those crossbows back on the Hans.

Click to expand...

If you want to consider technology, then consider the aquaducts, paved roads and the Coliseum against a social and technological organization that built the Great Wall, the Terra Cotta army, and later other grandoise projects like the Grand Canal which is simply the largest ancient engineering construction project, a total of 1200 miles of artificial river.

One interesting Chinese invention used is something called the Repeating Crossbow.

Here is a list of things the Hans already had---



Timeline indicates technology developing in China, and the approximations for Western civilization refer to some form of the discovery observed later.

Decimal place system (14th century BC) - 2300 years later in Western civilization
Lacquer, the first plastic (13th century BC) - 3200 years later in Western civilization
1122
-256 BC Zhou Dynasty Western Zhou later cited as a model period. Capital city near Xian. Confucius born in 551 BC. Flowering in classical literature, arts, and philosophy; Confuciansim, Taoism. Lao Tze and Chuang Tze lived around this period.

Internal alchemy, meditation, and breathing techniques developed.
The first transportation canals were built.

6th century BC

Row cultivation of crops and intensive hoeing - 2200 years later in Western civilization
Iron plow - about 2000 years later in Western civilization
Blood circulation studied - 1800 years later in Western civilization
The large tuned bell developed - 2500 years later in Western civilization

5th century BC

Spouting bowls and standing waves experimentation.
Geobotanical prospecting - 2100 years later in Western civilization
The kite - about 2000 years later in Western civilization

4th century BC

The trace efficient horse harness - 500 years later in Western civilization
Double-acting piston bellows, air and liquid - 1900-2100 years later in Western civilization
Petroleum and natural gas as fuel - 2300 years later in Western civilization
A place for zero in math - 1400 years later in Western civilization
The first compass- 1500 years later in Western civilization
The First Law of Motion- 1300 years later in Western civilization (but 2000 to Newton)
Manned flight with kites - 1650 years later in Western civilization
War technology
Chemical warfare: poison gas, smoke bombs, tear gas - 2300 years later in Western civilization
The crossbow- Centuries later in Western civilization
770
-256 BC Eastern Zhou
722
-481 BC Spring and Autumn
403
-221 BC Warring States
221
-206 BC Qin Dynasty Unification of China under Emperor Qin Shi Huang. State walls are joined to form the Great Wall. Palace and mausoleum near Xian, standardization of weights, measures, calligraphy. Emperor Qin Shi Huang creates burial pit city including thousands of full-size clay soldier statues (Terracotta warriors).
206 BC
-220 AD Han Dynasty

Capitals at Changan and Luoyang rivals that of Rome. Buddhism enters China from India. Birth of Confucian civil service.
2nd century BC

Paper invented - 1400 years later in Western civilization
Agricultural innovations
The rotary winnowing fan - 2000 years later in the West
The multi-tube seed drill - 1800 years later in the West
Engineering -
Crank handle - 1100 years later in the West
Gimbals, or Cardan suspension - 1100 years later in the West
Manufacture of steel from cast iron - 2000 years later in the West
Science of endocrinology - 2100 years later in the West
Hexagonal structure of snowflakes - 1800 years later in the West
Parachute - 2000 years later in the West
Miniature hot-air balloons - 1400 years later in the West
Tuned drums - 2000 years later in the West
1st century BC

Deep drilling for natural gas - 1900 years later in the West
Belt drive - 1400-1800 years later in the West
Wheelbarrow - 1300 years later in the West
Sliding calipers - 1700 years later in the West
Hermetically sealed labs - bout 2000 years later in the West
1st century AD

Water power - 1200 years later in the West
Chain pump - 1400 years later in the West
Suspension bridge - 1800 years later in the West
The rudder - 1100 years later in the West
Seismograph (130 AD) - 1400 years later in the West
206 BC
-9 AD Western Han
25-220 AD Hou Han
Later or Eastern Han
220-280 San Kuo (Three Kingdoms)
Wei, Shu-Han, Wu Han generals divide empire. This period is romanticized as a time of chivalry and heroism in later literature.

2nd century AD

Recognition of sunspots as solar phenomena - 1300 years later in Western civilization
The "magic lantern" - 1800 years later in Western civilization
"Modern" geology - 1500 years later in Western civilization
Batten sails - staggered masts - not adopted in Western civilization
Multiple masts - fore and aft rigs - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Watertight compartments in ships - 1700 years later in Western civilization
265-317 Western Chin (Jin) China briefly united under one Emperor. Capitals at Luoyang, Changan.

3rd century AD

Cybernetic machine - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Fishing reel - 1400 years later in Western civilization
Stirrup - 300 years later in Western civilization
Porcelain - 1700 years later in Western civilization
Biological pest control - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Deficiency diseases - 1600 years later in Western civilization
Algebra used in geometry - 1000 years later in Western civilization
Refined value of pi - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Dial and pointer devices - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Understanding of musical timbre - 1600 years later in Western civilization
317-420 Eastern Chin (Jin)


4th century AD

Umbrella - 1200 years later in Western civilization
Helicopter rotor and propeller - 1500 years later in Western civilization


================================================


What distinguishes cavalry development in the East vs. that of the West?

1. Development of composite crossbow. Both the Han and the enemies like the Xiongnu, Turkic and proto-Mongolic tribes had long learned how to use laminar construction in the creation of a bow. While the Romans are still using single wood material on their bows, the laminar or composite bow has such obvious advantages in range and hitting power, you can see the impact of such an army armed with these weapons when they finally hit the West---via Genghiz Khan's Mongol armies.

2. There is the development of the stirrup, which allows a very stable platform for a mounted archer on a horse to shoot accurately.

3. Here is one surprising invention everyone now takes for granted but is actually invented in the Eastern plains. It's what you call today as jeans, trousers, pants or pajamas. Before everyone wore robes, but this invention of clothing happens to be a great aid for the horse rider.

Combine trousers, stirrups, and a composite bow, and you have a revolutionary development in horse archery.

Han armor featured things like scale and mail armor, which are things you don't usually see in an ancient army but a medieval army. When you factor things like the use of steel, infantry crossbows, composite longbows, stirrups; the use of things like compass for navigation; ships with multimasts, rudders and watertight compartments, you are looking at a military machine that is more comparable to medieval Europe than the classic ancient Graeco-Roman period.

I have only one quarrel with that post. The use of water power. Multiple Roman plants have been discovered that use the flow of water/gravity via water wheels to turn cogs which, in turn, turn other cogs that moved giant crusher things that were used to make flour for bread. The next was a Greek/Ptolemaic invention, but there're records of it being used by Rome; an automatic door that works using primitive hydraulics. I forget how they work, but I know they had them, amongst other various hydraulic powered devices.

Oh, and if the Chinese lacked a constant source of fresh water like the Romans (who relied primarily on one river) then I have no doubt that they would've built their own magnificent aqueducts. However, Han China had the Yangtze, Mekong (although it was more in the Nanzhong area, presently Yunnan province), Xi, and Yellow River all flowing through it, so there wasn't a need for aqueducts.

trkl said:

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.

In terms of population, the archeologist say that the populations were close to the same. Rome was a big empire, it not only had Europe but also Turkey, the middle east, Egypt, and North Africa. Rome itself was the world's largest city with a population of over 1 million.

Click to expand...

that is wrong. rome was the best in the western world only. china, on the other hand, outpaced the rest of both worlds in the arts and sciences. the largest cities at the time were chang'an and loyand. both had over 2 million population with a wall 10 miles x 10 miles.

In terms of math, classical civilization managed to discover geometry for one thing, thanks to pioneers like Pythagoras. On the other hand, pre-Han Chinese civilization (around the Summer Period) is already able to figure out the concept of decimals and the concept of zero.