Romans aginst Qin ? 2500 years ago their was no Roman Empire, but (340 B.C) that of Alexander the Great (Greek).
Keep in mind that the Romans copied about almost everything from the Greek civilisation including the Army setup. They however improved it considerably to favour their necesseties, meaning to cope with their neigbouring threats which consistet almost entirely of footsoldiers.
The Roman Empire started to crumble due to the invaders from the east. It was the Persians and their cavalry that pushed the Romans to retreat and in the end to give up their plans for extending their Empire to the east.
The Romans had about 250000 Soldiers and the same number in auxilaries but of course these were dispersed along the entire empire. So when it came to the Persian problem, their where only 2 Legions (30000-40000) troops to withstand about 150-200000 Persians.
So if in fiction the Romans and the Han's would have encountered in battle it would have certainly been a draw if both forces would be on equal strength. According to military doctrine the attacker needs a superiority of 3:1 and above in order to win a battle. This ratio would have been impossible to be reached by the Romans.
So lets asume that Romans and Hans would be neighbours: Well after they would have slaughtered each other the MONGOLS would have taken over everything and due to population statistics the Han or Chinese would have in turn taken over everything after 4-5 generations.
Therefore the general question Romans against Qin or Han's doesn't make any sense and can't be answered accordingly.
How do you like the question: If Timurlaikan's fathers death would not have called him back to Mongolia, would their be a Europe as we know of today?
Keep in mind that the Romans copied about almost everything from the Greek civilisation including the Army setup. They however improved it considerably to favour their necesseties, meaning to cope with their neigbouring threats which consistet almost entirely of footsoldiers.
The Roman Empire started to crumble due to the invaders from the east. It was the Persians and their cavalry that pushed the Romans to retreat and in the end to give up their plans for extending their Empire to the east.
The Romans had about 250000 Soldiers and the same number in auxilaries but of course these were dispersed along the entire empire. So when it came to the Persian problem, their where only 2 Legions (30000-40000) troops to withstand about 150-200000 Persians.
So if in fiction the Romans and the Han's would have encountered in battle it would have certainly been a draw if both forces would be on equal strength. According to military doctrine the attacker needs a superiority of 3:1 and above in order to win a battle. This ratio would have been impossible to be reached by the Romans.
So lets asume that Romans and Hans would be neighbours: Well after they would have slaughtered each other the MONGOLS would have taken over everything and due to population statistics the Han or Chinese would have in turn taken over everything after 4-5 generations.
Therefore the general question Romans against Qin or Han's doesn't make any sense and can't be answered accordingly.
How do you like the question: If Timurlaikan's fathers death would not have called him back to Mongolia, would their be a Europe as we know of today?