Rome vs Han China

Status
Not open for further replies.
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Sun Wu Kong said:
After 200AD, it is not Roman army less good but it is only because their infantery based tactics don't fit anymore against cavalery tactics that are more modern. So they begin slowly to evolve to become a cavalery based army.
Click to expand...
you have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Rome only got weak militarily because Romans stop enlisting in the army, so they had to get mercenaries. Mercenaries are always less effective than nationalistic home grown soldiers. Heck, when Alaric invaded in 406, even the Roman general was a barbarian.
 
T

TJJH

New Member
Put it this way, the Roman armies were infrantry based with heavy reliance on formations, and never really ever changed that until much later. China used to be like that as well, except with crossbows. Then along came the Xiong Nu, and all of a sudden China was outdoing the Xiong Nu at their own game.
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Sun Wu Kong said:
You are totally wrong. The Han army have the best military technology. You must go to Xian to look at it. The Roman have far lower technology. And tacticly Roman army is only infantery based army. They will evolved to a cavalery army far later. So their tactics also. This only demonstrate the superiority of the cavalery. And already this demonstrate the more modern the Han army is!

Also Han army have 2 major advantages in their cavalery:
1/ saddle. Roman army will use it on the 1st century. The saddle give the stability to the cavalier particularly for archer. Han cavalery uses the crossbow wich is far more accurate and efficient (the best crossbow in the world, it is the truth).
2/ stirrup. No stirrup in Roman cavalery. It will be introduced only in 8th century in western Europe! Han cavalery have stirrup. The stirrup give the strength to the cavalier to break any infantery ligne.
Click to expand...

According to our time period, around 200-100 BC, China does not have the stirrup yet.
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
TJJH said:
Put it this way, the Roman armies were infrantry based with heavy reliance on formations, and never really ever changed that until much later. China used to be like that as well, except with crossbows. Then along came the Xiong Nu, and all of a sudden China was outdoing the Xiong Nu at their own game.
Click to expand...


You are over generalizing. Both armies were a combined arms team.

The core of the Roman army lies in its heavy infantry, the Legions. They fight in manipules that are easy to adapt in changing battle field conditions. They also used Auxiliary for their cavalry (usually Gallic or Numedian) , archers, and supplemental infantry (auxilia). Then they have specialist (engineers, artillery, doctors, etc)

Han army is like that as well.
They have their core group (the crossbowmen). And it is supported by heavy infantry weilding sword and shield or a pike, archers, heavy and light cavalry.

In my opinion, the best combo was the one used by Alexander the great. Phalanx infantry and companion cavalry combo.
 
A

aiguo

Just Hatched
Registered Member
i understand that u think that Rome was the greatest empire in the ancient times. that's because of ur education and the global trend. right now the western world basically dominates earth, therefore it's understandable that people think the western world has always been the most advanced sector of the world since the begining of human civilization, thus Roman empire has AUTOMATICALLY BECAME the most powerful empire in the ancient era. however, what the absolute majority of westerners don't know (no offence here and i'm not boasting AT ALL) is that China was the most advanced country of the world until about early Qin dynasty(about 1700) and occupied over half of the world's GDP until about mid Qin dynasty(about 1800). i.e. China was the richest and most advanced country for an absolute majority of its 5000 year history(it only started to fall at the begining of the modern age.
when we talk about comparing the Roman empire and Han China, well, based on fact, Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome(e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat)-no offence again. in term of battle capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again(e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by spears are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of manufacture one by one). Han also holds a numerical advantage. however, in the agricultural era, anything is possible in a war (leisurely armed peasants can overthrow a government much easeir than they would now). for example, the 'slave army' led by the famous Spaticus(correct me if i've spelt it wrong) has caused great trouble for the Roman empire. same in Han, the fact they we've got so many dynasties in our history is self-explanatory. However, i would still say Han could defeat Roman easily. i think most of u know that Han defeated the Huns in the Wudi era. however, i'm sure that not most of u don't know some of the remnants of the Huns after they had been defeated, had escaped west to Europe and had some battle with the Roman army, and they actually won these battles. According to this, Han should defeat Rome easily at the time. one more thing i have to say is that Han dynasty wasn't the 'peak' time in China's ancient history. our 'peak time' is the Tang dynasty which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdome era (three kingdome era is right after the fall of the Han dynasty). i'm not an expert in history and if u want to check out more Chinese history, search the web and i'm sure u would find tons more than what u think our history is all about.
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
aiguo said:
i understand that u think that Rome was the greatest empire in the ancient times. that's because of ur education and the global trend. right now the western world basically dominates earth, therefore it's understandable that people think the western world has always been the most advanced sector of the world since the begining of human civilization, thus Roman empire has AUTOMATICALLY BECAME the most powerful empire in the ancient era. however, what the absolute majority of westerners don't know (no offence here and i'm not boasting AT ALL) is that China was the most advanced country of the world until about early Qin dynasty(about 1700) and occupied over half of the world's GDP until about mid Qin dynasty(about 1800). i.e. China was the richest and most advanced country for an absolute majority of its 5000 year history(it only started to fall at the begining of the modern age.
when we talk about comparing the Roman empire and Han China, well, based on fact, Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome(e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat)-no offence again. in term of battle capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again(e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by spears are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of manufacture one by one). Han also holds a numerical advantage. however, in the agricultural era, anything is possible in a war (leisurely armed peasants can overthrow a government much easeir than they would now). for example, the 'slave army' led by the famous Spaticus(correct me if i've spelt it wrong) has caused great trouble for the Roman empire. same in Han, the fact they we've got so many dynasties in our history is self-explanatory. However, i would still say Han could defeat Roman easily. i think most of u know that Han defeated the Huns in the Wudi era. however, i'm sure that not most of u don't know some of the remnants of the Huns after they had been defeated, had escaped west to Europe and had some battle with the Roman army, and they actually won these battles. According to this, Han should defeat Rome easily at the time. one more thing i have to say is that Han dynasty wasn't the 'peak' time in China's ancient history. our 'peak time' is the Tang dynasty which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdome era (three kingdome era is right after the fall of the Han dynasty). i'm not an expert in history and if u want to check out more Chinese history, search the web and i'm sure u would find tons more than what u think our history is all about.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the forum!!!

I am not desputing the fact that Han China was richer and more technologically advance than Rome. Rome's slave based economy was not as efficient. IN terms of philosophy, the Greeks beat the Romans. Although it is true that Eurocentric education tends to underestimate what China had, the reverse can also be true. China has never fought an enemy that uses tactics the same as Rome does. (Battle of Sogdiana not counting) Rome's first foray against horse archers ended in defeat due to incompetant leadership.

But what Rome was good at is warfare.

Wudi's war against the Huns vs Huns invasion of Europe is an unfair comparison. Han during Wudi's time was at it height. When the Hun came to Europe, Rome was on its last ropes. It's strength was depleted by corruption and constant barbarian invasion.

For a fairer comparison, lets compare them both at its Height. The Han army under Wudi, vs the Roman Army after the Punic Wars. We are comparing Han and Rome, not Europe vs China.

The main question is how effective were crossbows against the Legion.
I believe they can pierce the Scotum, but can they go through the Scotum AND pierce through chain armor? As history have pointed out, a well motivated and disciplined army can charge through determined firepower and still break a defensive line. One can only look at the Napolianic wars for this. Muskets and cannon fire were much deadlier than the Crossbow.

Another matter is:

1.) How fast is the rate of fire of the crossbow?
2.) How fast can the legions cover the distance between the two armies?
3.) What type of casualty figures can we expect before Rome can close the Gap.
4.) Can the Han heavy infantry hold out against Rome's Legion in order to keep them from the Crossbow men.
5.) How effective will the HAN heavy cavalry be with out stirrups?
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
A rather pointless topic in my view as neither Empire would have been able to maintain its power over territories so vast that they could meet and come into conflict.

I would guess that the Chinese Cavalry and Rome Heavy Infantry Legions would have had a deep and professional respect for each other.

I did hear about a year or so ago some academic speculation (I think it was quite widespread) based on Roman and Chinese records and some artifacts. Some Roman Infantry, finding itself on the losing side of an Intercine Imperial contest, escaped through Central Asia and; acting as Mercenaries followed down the Silk Route untill they came to the Chinese borders.

The Chinese were apparently impressed and offered the Legionaries a home on the Western Borders in return for guard duties on behalf of the Emperor. It was assumed that they settled, married and assimiliated over time into the native population.

An interesting tale.
 
Liberator

Liberator

Junior Member
You exagerate too much the capabities of Roman infantries. Even against Hannibal they were crushed at every battles except one the decisive one because Hannibal make a big mistake.

Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.

If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.
Click to expand...

I think Wu Kong is making nice statements.

Question, how much legionaries do u think will get hit and is unable to continue. before reaching 410 metres? of crossbow firing.

Hey is there a DVD or a show about ancient Chinese armies. I would love to see it. Do you know where I could get it?
Click to expand...

Mate.. The armours, formations, soldiers, and all the other stuff on ancient Chinese warring movies are not accurate. U think they will go get the uniform that is like a real Chinese armour to a movie? Unlike US movie making. China does not have that much money as USA to shoot a film or movie.

Besides, China has lots of soldiers for battles. On movies, u might see CHinese soldiers with red cloth as their uniform with a decorated vest as armour while the enemies have the same except for their colour, which will be blue.

4.) Can the Han heavy infantry hold out against Rome's Legion in order to keep them from the Crossbow men.
Click to expand...

50. 50. Chinese heavy infantries and light infantries take action together. A bunch of light infantries which are pikemen with very long poles and a blade attached to it. (Sort of like a poleaxe and spear). Aswell as the heavy infantries have nice enough armour and shield. Armed with curved cutlass (Broadsword, Chinese ones) and axe. Some use hammers. Swords are wider than Roman gladius.

If a battle like that occurs, formations engage formations CAN be a mess. Roman soldiers can often separate without options, aswell as Chinese.

BTW, Chinese crossbows are deadly in range of 365 metres. This mean, within 365 metres, the bolt can pierce armours. And piercing flesh is not a problem.
 
Last edited:
O

Obcession

Junior Member
Remember the Chinese crossbows were semiautomatic and could fire up to what, 10 bolts continously? (correct me if I'm wrong) Also, they would fire in volleys, like the Europeans did in the Napoleonic Wars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top