Rome vs Han China

crobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

1.) That is correct, the Mediterreanean world never had anything comparable to a "power bow". In the battle of Carrhae, was the first time the Roman's faced the composite bow and horse archers. Greek sources said that "hands were nailed to their sheilds and feet to their sandals." 10,000 parthians defeated 40,000 legionairs. However, Crassus was an incompetent commander. Mark Anthony tried again but was forced to retreat. It was only under Trajan that Rome made significant advances. However, Parthia was collapsing at this point.

Having said that, during the napoleanic wars and the American Civil war, deciplined soldiers have shown that they can march and close with the enemy under withering fire. I see no reason why Roman soldiers could not do this, afterall 19th century muskets have are much more powerful than the crossbow. Han crossbow men are particularly vulnerable since, unlike the horsearchers, they cannot keep the distance.

2.) Stirrup was not developed in the east until the Western Rome already fell. Not relevant. Parthian horsearchers were still effective with out stirrups though. I can't see why Han horse archers could not be as effective.

3.) The greeks were much more advance than the Rome. Yet Greece was a province of Rome instead of Rome being a province of Greece. Rome forged her empire not through superior technology, but through superior discipline and the flexibility of the manipular warfare. Carthage, seluecid, Macedon, and the greeks had better technology.

The gauls already had jeans.


The Roman manipular warfare is a 1 trick pony. It is flexible that is true, and if faced against another infantry based army, it will almost prevail. The same thing could be said about horse achers.

What han had was a "Combined Arms" army of crossbowmen, heavy infantry, heavy cavalry, and light cavalry. Those are much much more flexible than the Roman heavy infantry centered army. Alexander the Great also had an combined arms army, and he was never defeated.

IDonT said:

1.) That is correct, the Mediterreanean world never had anything comparable to a "power bow". In the battle of Carrhae, was the first time the Roman's faced the composite bow and horse archers. Greek sources said that "hands were nailed to their sheilds and feet to their sandals." 10,000 parthians defeated 40,000 legionairs. However, Crassus was an incompetent commander. Mark Anthony tried again but was forced to retreat. It was only under Trajan that Rome made significant advances. However, Parthia was collapsing at this point.

Having said that, during the napoleanic wars and the American Civil war, deciplined soldiers have shown that they can march and close with the enemy under withering fire. I see no reason why Roman soldiers could not do this, afterall 19th century muskets have are much more powerful than the crossbow. Han crossbow men are particularly vulnerable since, unlike the horsearchers, they cannot keep the distance.

2.) Stirrup was not developed in the east until the Western Rome already fell. Not relevant. Parthian horsearchers were still effective with out stirrups though. I can't see why Han horse archers could not be as effective.

3.) The greeks were much more advance than the Rome. Yet Greece was a province of Rome instead of Rome being a province of Greece. Rome forged her empire not through superior technology, but through superior discipline and the flexibility of the manipular warfare. Carthage, seluecid, Macedon, and the greeks had better technology.

The gauls already had jeans.


The Roman manipular warfare is a 1 trick pony. It is flexible that is true, and if faced against another infantry based army, it will almost prevail. The same thing could be said about horse achers.

What han had was a "Combined Arms" army of crossbowmen, heavy infantry, heavy cavalry, and light cavalry. Those are much much more flexible than the Roman heavy infantry centered army. Alexander the Great also had an combined arms army, and he was never defeated.

Click to expand...

1. Musket fire is extremely inaccurate past 100 or so yards, and it's still not pin-point accurate at 50. If a hundred men lined up and fired at a hundred other men on the other side when both were about 50 yards apart, maybe 10 or 20 men would die on the side that's being fired upon. Sure, it's more powerful, but it takes longer to reload a musket and it's not as reliable.

2. Stirrups weren't invented IN EUROPE until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. However, nomadic tribes, who tend to ride horses a lot, found that stirrups made life a whole helluva lot easier. Chinese picked up on this, seeing as they had to fight those same nomadic tribes.

3. Greeks were more advanced as far as civil technology, not military technology. Greeks still relied primarily on hoplites and the phalanx formation, which was a big mistake when facing the Roman army. Rome was, in fact, more advanced in military technology than the Greeks, which ultimately helped them prevail. The Chinese, in this scenario, are not only vastly superior numerically, but also technologically and militarily. The Chinese have superior metallurgy, which made their bronze as strong as Roman iron, and their iron stronger than anything Rome had to offer. They had steel, too, but the Chinese wouldn't have been able to make massive amounts of it for armor.


Oh, coolstorm, it was Luoyang or something like that, not loyand or whatever.

InsertName said:

1. Musket fire is extremely inaccurate past 100 or so yards, and it's still not pin-point accurate at 50. If a hundred men lined up and fired at a hundred other men on the other side when both were about 50 yards apart, maybe 10 or 20 men would die on the side that's being fired upon. Sure, it's more powerful, but it takes longer to reload a musket and it's not as reliable.

2. Stirrups weren't invented IN EUROPE until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. However, nomadic tribes, who tend to ride horses a lot, found that stirrups made life a whole helluva lot easier. Chinese picked up on this, seeing as they had to fight those same nomadic tribes.

3. Greeks were more advanced as far as civil technology, not military technology. Greeks still relied primarily on hoplites and the phalanx formation, which was a big mistake when facing the Roman army. Rome was, in fact, more advanced in military technology than the Greeks, which ultimately helped them prevail. The Chinese, in this scenario, are not only vastly superior numerically, but also technologically and militarily. The Chinese have superior metallurgy, which made their bronze as strong as Roman iron, and their iron stronger than anything Rome had to offer. They had steel, too, but the Chinese wouldn't have been able to make massive amounts of it for armor.


Oh, coolstorm, it was Luoyang or something like that, not loyand or whatever.

Click to expand...

1.) Muskets in the US Civil War was very accurate. That was the main contributing factors as to why it was so bloody. Then add solid shot and grape shot artillery that was very very accurate. Furthermore, muskets are much faster to relaod than crossbow, roughly 3 rounds a minute. Yet despite this array of firepower, soldiers were still able get in close.

2.) Han China did not have stirrups, they were invented around 6 AD. The Tang and the Songs had them, at that time the western Rome already fell.

3.) Phalanx was a very good infantry fomation. Alexander employed the Phalanx to very good use. And yes, he had professional soldiers just like the Romans. The main reason why Phalanx vs Legion battles always gives the legion the victory, was that they did not know how to use it. They were supposed to be used in conjunction with cavalry. After Alexander, the Macedons relied primarily on the Phalanx as the main attack. With out proper use of cavalry and using it on rough ground, the Legions slaughtered them.

Superior chinese mettalurgy is not the ultimate arbiter of who should win this battle.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

The Romans had weak cavalry. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows. Han infantry was weak though, but they did have very powerful crossbows. The Romans also equipped their soldiers with better armor.

Click to expand...

Han infantry weak? You are kidding right? Infantry filled the bulk of Chinese armies for most of history due to the lack of horses.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Pound for pound, the Roman army was the strongest of the Ancient Era. However, Chinese emperors could raise, train, and equip armies of millions of men while the Romans had no more than 500,000 soldiers at their height.

Click to expand...

Not proven and subjective at best.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Most armies do falter if their general is killed. The Roman Legions might be better off, since they are professional soldiers and not likely to falter as easily.

Click to expand...

Um, I never did get this idea why people tend to get the idea that the Roman Legion was professional while everybody else's was not.

sino52C said:

I think Rome may have superior training and discipline for its troops. It also has contacted many other parts of the world. China, on the other hand, has fewer contact with other nations.

Click to expand...

You know, I really hate when this myth is repeated again and again. It's like saying that if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of culture to keep their empires together, they'd be called isolated.

J T Z said:

Art of War... Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with this one. Attila was successful, but he wasn't near to wiping out the Roman Empire as a whole.

Liberator said:

Such as hero. (Part of it).

Fried Rice, u said alot, can u name some?

Click to expand...

I never quite understood people's fascination with movies when it comes to history. They are inaccurate at best.

tphuang said:

I haven't read anything on this thread and don't intend to, so I will just say this:
1. Although they use different tactics and different types of troops, I think Rome would destroy Han.

2. The only really tough opponent China faced was Mongolia. Who later on proved to be quite ferocious in their migration toward Europe.

If we are talking about the pre-100AD roman army, we are talking about an army that constantly fought against insurgency, barbarians and other worth opponents. They had pretty much the most disciplined troop in the Ancient times outside of the Spartans. In addition, the weaponry used by the Romans were by far the most advanced at the time, since the Romans were great engineers. But if we are talking about post-200AD, that's a different story. All they had were mercenaries, they couldn't even defend against the Visogoths.

Click to expand...

Um, China only fought continuously for about 600 hundred years. Then a pause of 32 years. Then civil war broke out again. Continuously fought "nomads" and "barbarians" the whole time. No offence or anything, but you must have a hole in your head if you think the only serious challenge the Chinese faced were the Mongols.

IDonT said:

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?

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that Han under Han Wudi was its height? By the time Han Wudi decided to fight the Huns instead of diplomacy, China's treasury was almost dried up. Even more so after he built his army.

KYli said:

Actually Xiongnu Empire is the most powerful empire in the world at least until 134B.C. Xiongnu had dominated the central asia area of the silk route, and it always remained close behind the Han dynasty in power even after Han Wudi defeated them. The Han only had slowly began wrest the tarim from the Xiongnu begining in 108B.C. and defeated the kingdom of Gu Shi which is persent day Turfan and Urumchi. People just tend to forget about Xiongnu, because Xiongnu empire had defeated by Han. They have overlook that Xiongnu Empire and Han(including Warring time period) had fought for few hundreds years until Han finally able to crash the Xiongnu.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with this one. The Xiongnu were never close to being the most powerful. The fact that they stuck along so long was more due to the fact that the Hans were sedentry and it was simply too expensive march across a huge grassland and then a desert. The Xiongnu was never in a position to threaten China proper, if you can call it that.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Welcome to the forum mindreader. I'd like to point out to you that multiple-posting is frowned upon, so we'd appreciate it if you would combine your posts into one post. If you have more to add to a post, use the edit option. Generally, you should never post consecutive posts with a reply from a fellow forum-goer.



Which part?



The majority of Chinese troops were militia called up from among the pesantry during wartime. The Roman legionaire were professional soldiers who would serve for extended periods of time, usually between 5 and 10 years.

Click to expand...

Just noticed. My bad. I actually had no idea I posted that many though.

Subjective in the sense that the Romans were the most professional and best trained. I don't think we can make an argument one way or another. They've never faced against each other. If we were to use this "they faced Carthaginians, etc" you could easily argue that the Chinese were stuck in a 6 century long civil war not much earlier, each army was professional and very very large. It's simply not rational for the pro-Roman faction to take for granted that the Roman infantry were superior.

If I remember my history correctly, a significant chunk of Rome's armies include significant amounts of auxilia, essentially not much different than Han's peasant armies. Mercenaries were also hired in later Roman times. It doesn't change the fact that the professional segment of Han armies were still larger than professional Roman legionaries. And if you ask me which were better, I couldn't tell ya. I don't think you could objectively tell me either.

One thing I do want to point out though is the development of armour technology. Contrary to popular belief, Han (hell, even Qin) infantry HAD access to heavy plate mail and steel armours. The reason they chose not to distribute en balk was due to:

1. The crossbow innovation
2. The large peasant army

The crossbow proved deadly on many occasions and it was decided by Han times that mobility was more important than heavier armour. In fact, if you look at the Warring States period, the various states employed large numbers of infantry and chariots. Xiongnu horse archers proved deadly to these, which led to military reforms. Now picture this, but with much more deadly crossbow in mind. With light armour, an infantry would have a slight chance of making it across the field. If weighted down by heavy armour, they are dead in the water.

The peasant army part is also self-explanatory. The professional army gets the best. The peasants (who are expected to go back to the field once the fighting is done) get the rest.

The professional portion of the Han army (hell, pre-Han too) was highly trained, which once again, is what vexes me so much about the lack of professional training and the alleged superiority of Roman infantry.

So which one would win? If I must pick one then my money's on the Han.


MOD EDIT PiSigma: i had to merge TEN of your posts, and we don't even allow double posting. Don't make me do this again, please go read the forum rules again.

Welcome to the forum mindreader. I'd like to point out to you that multiple-posting is frowned upon, so we'd appreciate it if you would combine your posts into one post. If you have more to add to a post, use the edit option. Generally, you should never post consecutive posts with a reply from a fellow forum-goer.

Not proven and subjective at best.

Click to expand...

Which part?

Um, I never did get this idea why people tend to get the idea that the Roman Legion was professional while everybody else's was not.

Click to expand...

The majority of Chinese troops were militia called up from among the pesantry during wartime. The Roman legionaire were professional soldiers who would serve for extended periods of time, usually between 5 and 10 years.

mindreader said:

Have to disagree with this one. The Xiongnu were never close to being the most powerful. The fact that they stuck along so long was more due to the fact that the Hans were sedentry and it was simply too expensive march across a huge grassland and then a desert. The Xiongnu was never in a position to threaten China proper, if you can call it that.

Click to expand...

The first emperor of Han Emperor Gao was defeated by Xiongnu, which had forced the Han to pay tribute to Xiongnu for sixty years. You could argue that the Han could have done something sooner to counter the Xiongnu , but at the very beginning of Han empire the Han did not have what it take to defeat the Xiongnu. Also even after Han wudi sucessfully defeated the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu still remain a major threat to Han for a long time. Which was why I said the Xiongnu was one of the most powerful empire at that time period.

Where did you get the idea that Han under Han Wudi was its height? By the time Han Wudi decided to fight the Huns instead of diplomacy, China's treasury was almost dried up. Even more so after he built his army.

Click to expand...

It was during Han Wudi that the Han dynasty reached its greatest length. Though it is true that he bankrupt the empire in the process, from a military standpoint Han was at its peak.

KYli said:

The first emperor of Han Emperor Gao was defeated by Xiongnu, which had forced the Han to pay tribute to Xiongnu for sixty years. You could argue that the Han could have done something sooner to counter the Xiongnu , but at the very beginning of Han empire the Han did not have what it take to defeat the Xiongnu. Also even after Han wudi sucessfully defeated the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu still remain a major threat to Han for a long time. Which was why I said the Xiongnu was one of the most powerful empire at that time period.

Click to expand...

A little to simplistic in that approach. The first thing I should point out is that Liu Bang was warned that he was underestimating the Xiong Nu. I should remember the guy's name but I'm drawing a blank at the moment... Chen something; and that a prolonged war with the Xiong Nu was not in the Han's best interest in the short term, considering that by that time, China was no longer mobilised for war.

But Liu Bang still chose to go to fight, with a smaller force, without considering logistics any ways. He assumed that each of his soldiers were superior to the Xiong Nu soldiers (which ironically, is what the pro-Roman side is doing with the Roman legionary). So when the Shan Yu baited him, bet bit and was trapped on a hill. His arrogance led to him being surrounded by the Xiong Nu and his total humiliation. It had more to do with lack of planning than Xiong Nu military might.

Even post Liu Bang's defeat, the Xiong Nu was never in a position to challenge the Han. Think about it: if they could, why didn't they? The tributes were more because it was too expensive to maintain a large force on the frontier instead of anything else.

How do I know this? Considering Empress Lu's tactics (Liu Bang's wife). She was a lot more rational. She took time to built up and mobilised a force that crushed the Xiong Nu hordes, after which the Xiong Nu was unable to challenge the Han for 10 years. But even after this, the Han still paid tribute.

In all respect, I think it is this defeat you were talking about, not Han Wudi's victories. Han Wudi's victories were total. The Xiong Nu was never heard of from western China again.

Certainly the Xiong Nu were powerful, but to say it is one of the most powerful is a bit of a stretch.

mindreader said:

A little to simplistic in that approach. The first thing I should point out is that Liu Bang was warned that he was underestimating the Xiong Nu. I should remember the guy's name but I'm drawing a blank at the moment... Chen something; and that a prolonged war with the Xiong Nu was not in the Han's best interest in the short term, considering that by that time, China was no longer mobilised for war.

Click to expand...

Liu Bang had underestimating his enemies, and made many terrible mistakes. But Xiongnu had mobilized upto 300,000 cavalry by Modu, you could dispute the numbers. But I would ask you, how many empires at that time had the ability and power that XiongNu had to gather an army of thus scale.

But Liu Bang still chose to go to fight, with a smaller force, without considering logistics any ways. He assumed that each of his soldiers were superior to the Xiong Nu soldiers (which ironically, is what the pro-Roman side is doing with the Roman legionary). So when the Shan Yu baited him, bet bit and was trapped on a hill. His arrogance led to him being surrounded by the Xiong Nu and his total humiliation. It had more to do with lack of planning than Xiong Nu military might.

Click to expand...

True, Liu bang never was a good general.

Even post Liu Bang's defeat, the Xiong Nu was never in a position to challenge the Han. Think about it: if they could, why didn't they? The tributes were more because it was too expensive to maintain a large force on the frontier instead of anything else.
How do I know this? Considering Empress Lu's tactics (Liu Bang's wife). She was a lot more rational. She took time to built up and mobilised a force that crushed the Xiong Nu hordes, after which the Xiong Nu was unable to challenge the Han for 10 years. But even after this, the Han still paid tribute.

Click to expand...

Empress Lu' tactics were sucessful but XiongNu had only stopped their challege to the Han for a short period of time. Xiongnu Laoshang Chanyu continued his father "Modu" expansionist policies. Laoshang never took the peace treaty seriously. In one occasion his troops penetrated to a point near Chang''an. In 166BC he personally led 140,000 cavalry to invade Anding. The frontier was never safe from XiongNu attacked. These all showed that the Xiongnu did caused serious and major threat to Han dynasty. There were many occasion XiongNu tried to invade Han, but it was as much hardship for them to fight the Han as Han wudi did to defeat them.

In all respect, I think it is this defeat you were talking about, not Han Wudi's victories. Han Wudi's victories were total. The Xiong Nu was never heard of from western China again.

Click to expand...

After Han Wudi's victories expedition against Xiongnu, the Xiongnu did not have much power to invade Han for a long period of time. But in 49AD, the xiongnu splitted into North and Southern XiongNu. The Southern XiongNu defected to East Han, which caused a migration of Xiongnu into China. The Northern Xiongnu continued to wage war against the Han, eventually the Han and their allied manage to defeat the Northern Xiongnu. The Northern XiongNu fled westwards. If Xiongnu didn't splitted, they were still very capable to wage war against the Han and caused seriouly problems for Han. Han Wudi's victories were decisive but not concludsive.

Certainly the Xiong Nu were powerful, but to say it is one of the most powerful is a bit of a stretch.

Click to expand...

Maybe or Maybe not, but Xiong Nu were powerful nevertheless.

IDonT said:

1.) Muskets in the US Civil War was very accurate. That was the main contributing factors as to why it was so bloody. Then add solid shot and grape shot artillery that was very very accurate. Furthermore, muskets are much faster to relaod than crossbow, roughly 3 rounds a minute. Yet despite this array of firepower, soldiers were still able get in close.

2.) Han China did not have stirrups, they were invented around 6 AD. The Tang and the Songs had them, at that time the western Rome already fell.

3.) Phalanx was a very good infantry fomation. Alexander employed the Phalanx to very good use. And yes, he had professional soldiers just like the Romans. The main reason why Phalanx vs Legion battles always gives the legion the victory, was that they did not know how to use it. They were supposed to be used in conjunction with cavalry. After Alexander, the Macedons relied primarily on the Phalanx as the main attack. With out proper use of cavalry and using it on rough ground, the Legions slaughtered them.

Superior chinese mettalurgy is not the ultimate arbiter of who should win this battle.

Click to expand...

1. No, the main reason for the high bodycount in the civil war was the fact that both sides conscripted tens of thousands of soldiers who spent *days* on hand fighting. When you have an army of nearly 100,000 facing off against an army of about 70 to 80,000, you're going to have a high bodycount regardless of what your weapons are capable of doing, especially when both sides consist of mostly untrained young men that have no idea what they're doing.

The musket was accurate *for it's time,* sure, but that doesn't mean it was as accurate as other weapons throughout history. 3 rounds per minute? I'm guessing that you haven't read this entire thread. The Han crossbow wasn't like Medieval European crossbows. A Han Crossbowmen could easily get off 5 or more shots in a minute.

2. You know, I don't mean to be rude, but why are you even trying to debate on this board?

Fact A) The Han Dynasty was founded in 206 BC and ended in 220 AD (although it was pretty muchly dead after the 190 AD. The warlords hadn't "technically" started a civil war yet, but they were fighting one another.)

Fact B) The Roman Empire fell in the 400 AD area, which is 394 years *later* than your claim.

Fact A + Fact B = Han Dynasty has stirrups in Han vs Rome battle.

3. Don't get me wrong, the phalanx was a powerful defensive formation, and it worked in Alexander's time. Regardless, it was still offered a few disadvantages which you don't want when facing the Roman legions. Lack of mobility and the fact that if an enemy flanks you, you're done for. Okay, if the Greeks guarded the flanks with cavalry, they may've done better. Regardless, that's still a very one-dimensional army for the most part, which, on it's own, spells the inevitable collapse of the empire using such armies.

So, that's out of the way. I would add something into the more recent posts, but the two that're going at it right now are much more knowledgeable about the era prior to the fall of the Han Dynasty than I am.