Rome vs Han China

Generally speaking, historians agree that the Western Roman Empire fell when Emperor Romulus Augustus abacaded on Sept 4th, 476AD. Various pieces of the Western Roman empire continued in its "Roman" ways for couple of hundred years after.

The Eastern Roman Empire would continue until the fall of Constantinople & death of Emperor Constantine XI in 1453AD by the Turks.

However when comparring Han (206BC - 220AD) to Rome, since the partiion of Eastern vs. Western Roman Empire did not occur until 395AD, I think it'd be fair to only compare Han to the Western Roman Empire.

In 300 BC Romans was considered "primitive" by their neighbors in Greece/Macedon and Carthage. By 200 BC they had wiped the floor with Macedon (Pyrrhus) and Carthage (Punic Wars).

One factor that many people overlook is the development of Roman public education. By public education I mean non-slave male Roman citizens (this is 2,000 years ago).

In 600 BC, Roman (male) children were taught by their fathers from age 7, and their education & subject matter was highly dependent on their father's education level and expertise. The Romans looked up to the Greeks as being culturally superior.

By 200 BC the Romans had implemented 6-year public education from age 6 to 12. Boys, and some girls (with parental consent) were sent to free public school for 6 years. After that, if the parents could afford it, the kid is sent to grammer school from age 13-15, and rhetoric school from ager 16-18.

This means, coming from a relatively "primtiive" civilization (comparred to their neighbors), the Romans became better educated and advanced quickly over a span of 400 years, to the point where they could wipe out their powerful neighbor to the south.

KYli said:

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.



True, Liu bang never was a good general.

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.

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.


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

Click to expand...

One problem with this assumption is that, nothing occurs in a vaccum. Certainly Modu's army was impressive, but that has a lot to do with social economic conditions, and in this case, way of life. I would like to remind you that most Xiong Nu learn to ride a horse as much soon as they can walk. They way of life and survival depends upon it.

The relative percentage of riders and trained hunters is much higher for the Xiong Nu as compared to agrarian societies, which most of the "civilized world" was. So it really is not the right comparison to say that the Xiong Nu can raise 300,000 men where others cannot. They (the larger empires that is) can. They just to see it as beneficial.

The perfect example of this is Han Wudi. By the time he came around, the benefits of sending a 700,000 men army (along with some 50,000 more in support/logistics) against the Xiong Nu and chasing them half way across the desert had overtaken the costs. Of course, you know what happened after. The Han dynasty was bankrupt and pretty soon fell apart.

In fact, one question I have theorized is the following. As you know, China has the misfortune of bordering one of the largest wastelands (desert/stepps) for agricultural societies in the world. This led to the land being repulsive for most ethnic Han immigrants, even today. Had this not been the case, would Modu even grow to become powerful enough to raise a 300,000 men army? Probably not.

With regards to Empress Lu's victory, that's why I said she kept the Xiong Nu in check for roughly 10 years.

As for Han Wudi's victories, it's really a matter of how you define it isn't it? The first question is the definition of Xiong Nu. In history, this was used as an all encompassing term which included almost every tribe west of Qin, during the Warring States period. I would argue that the Northern and Southern Xiong Nu were actually a different tribe; another that moved into the region and inter-married with the remnant locals following Han Wudi's victories.

Secondly, where there are people, there will be conflicts. You wipe out one army without rooting them out (as the Han couldn't do because they couldn't settle the region), they'll just raise another. We could of course, argue on alternative histories, could the combined Xiong Nu defeat the Han. I'll just say this, they will cause a lot of headaches, but once again, they weren't in a position to challenge the Han and conquer the central plains (except maybe when the Han dynasty was about collapse). They will remain what they are: a huge problem with no simple solutions.

InsertName said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, was out for a while

1.) The U.S. civil most of the slaughter was not due to hand to hand fighting but by projectile weapons. Musket's of the civil war are totally different from musket of the Napoleanic era. They were more accurate thanks to firing a bullet shaped umm bullet instead of a ball, were rifled, used percussion cap instead of flint lock. That is why there were so many people who died. They were using Napoleonic era tactics with 1860's weapons.

Secondly, both sides had well trained and well drilled armies. I do not know where you get that idea that they were untrained. Before being sent to the front, they were sent to boot camp to learn how to drill. They drill almost every day.

Thirdly, the 1860's musket is much more superior to the Han crossbow. I do not know where your going with that train of thought. Also, crossbows are mechanical weapons, that is they used mechanical devices to store their energy. The strength of the crossbow is directly correlated to how hard it is to draw. The more powerful the crossbow, the longer it takes to draw it because its heavier. Sure there were much more faster firing crossbow, but they were generally do not have the penetrating power of the slower firing ones. I highly doubt the faster firing crossbows could penetrate Roman shield.

2.) In our scenario, around 100 BC, Han do not have stirrups.

3.) Alexander the great employed the Phanlanx to its peak. Using the phalanx by itself is dumb, it doesn't work that way. Alexander use it in conjunction with his cavalry. They were the anvil to his cavalry's hammer. He was undefeated using this tactic

Roman manipular warfare rely mainly on the strenght of the legion itself: discipline and flexibility. Lucky for the Romans that they did not faced a general the employed the Phalanx hammer anvil tactics like Alexander did. Though Hannibal came close

Hannibal used probably the best combined arm tactics the Romans ever faced. Does he even have a centerpiece in battle like the Sarissa is to Alexander? Some would say elephants, but he seemed to do fine without them.

1. My bad, I didn't spell out the definition of "untrained." I really need to stop relying on people to use some small amount of common sense to figure out what one would mean by "untrained." Obviously the men were drilled in how to use a gun, but as far as military standards go, they were, essentially, untrained. They were about as trained as a Chinese footmen in that they were conscripted, given some weapons and very basic training, then told "Kill anyone who isn't on your side." I get this idea from the fact that every single book, show, or site I go to that deals with the civil war states this fact quite bluntly. Anyways, I didn't know that the bullet-shaped bullet was in use during the civil war. My bad.

If you're still questioning the power of the Han crossbow, the range, the accuracy, and the rate of fire, then you need to seriously go back and read through the thread. From what I recally, a university (I forget which one) did a test where they fired a Han crossbow at a Roman shield (from a good distance) and the bolt went through the shield. You have to remember, the Roman shield isn't all that thick. The reason it was good at deflecting enemy blows was because it was rounded, making the blows glance off. The only iron on it is in the center to guard the hand to the best of my knowledge. The rest is thin wood. Regular bows might have a hard time penetrating the shield, but the compound bows used by the Parthians proved that the shield wasn't as grand as everyone might've thought. If a compound bow can pierce the shield, then I'm sure that the crossbow could not only do the same, but possibly wound or maybe even kill the unfortunate fellow behind the shield.

2. I don't recall coming to an agreement where the scenario had to be around 100 BC. Anyways, on the subject of stirrups, according to the information I've gathered, the first evidence of stirrups being used in China is in the Western Wei, Eastern Jin time-period (which is the mid-to-late 200 AD on up through I think mid-500 AD), but that's evidence of the stirrup becoming something of nobility. It's quite possible that it was in use at earlier dates, but probably not too much earlier, which means that it's possible that the Late Han (or the mid-100 AD to early-200 AD period of the Han) may've used the stirrup. Regardless, whether or not the Han cavalry used the stirrup wouldn't be the deciding factor anyways, seeing as the sheer number of cavalry would've been more than the Roman legions could handle, especially if the legions get pelted by the crossbows for the length of their march to meet the cavalry in combat!

3. Obviously the cavalry made a difference, and that's where the phalanx suffers it's greatest fault. As I have already come to realize long before this debate, and you have come to repeat numerous times, the formation is pretty muchly useless without cavalry or, at the least, heavy infantry (both sword and spear). Regardless, even with cavalry or heavy infantry, armies relying on such simplistic tactics would be outsmarted sooner, rather than later. Seeing as the Seleucid empire, the kingdom of Macedonia, and the Ptolemaic Empire were all around during Rome's rise to power, it's safe to assume that at least one still used cavalry. Their downfall wasn't due to their formation, it was due mostly to much internal strife, an overextended kingdom (in Seleucia's case), and, of course, the change in military tactics and wide-spread use of professional armies (such as those used by Rome). Alexander had the edge in his time because of his professional troops, as to where Darius still fielded tens of thousands of levies with very, *very* little training, relying mostly on numbers to win the battle. That's not to say Alexander wasn't a great general, but it is to say that he had the advantage of quality over quantity. By the time the Diodachi come into play, that quality is being used by not only each other, but other soon-to-be-formed empires.


I'm a big fan of both sides, and, perhaps, by some miracle, Rome *could* win, but it's a *very* unlikely scenario. Not only are the Romans on the bad side of a 4-to-1 scale (assuming the Han has 2 million men and Rome has 500,000 [most of which being Auxilla]), but they're also out-matched technologically, and possibly tactically. I mean, it's practically a "Name a disadvantage and <whatever> has it" scenario for the Romans.

1.) The U.S. civil most of the slaughter was not due to hand to hand fighting but by projectile weapons. Musket's of the civil war are totally different from musket of the Napoleanic era. They were more accurate thanks to firing a bullet shaped umm bullet instead of a ball, were rifled, used percussion cap instead of flint lock. That is why there were so many people who died. They were using Napoleonic era tactics with 1860's weapons.

Secondly, both sides had well trained and well drilled armies. I do not know where you get that idea that they were untrained. Before being sent to the front, they were sent to boot camp to learn how to drill. They drill almost every day.

Thirdly, the 1860's musket is much more superior to the Han crossbow. I do not know where your going with that train of thought. Also, crossbows are mechanical weapons, that is they used mechanical devices to store their energy. The strength of the crossbow is directly correlated to how hard it is to draw. The more powerful the crossbow, the longer it takes to draw it because its heavier. Sure there were much more faster firing crossbow, but they were generally do not have the penetrating power of the slower firing ones. I highly doubt the faster firing crossbows could penetrate Roman shield.

Click to expand...

Might have to disagree with that though. Plains Indians quickly dropped the idea of muskets because muskets took a longer time to reload and was less accurate than their bow and arrows. And they were not using composite ones. It was only the advent of the Winchester repeating rifle that the Plains Indians finally abandoned their bow and arrow as they finally found a weapon far superior.

InsertName said:

If you're still questioning the power of the Han crossbow, the range, the accuracy, and the rate of fire, then you need to seriously go back and read through the thread. From what I recally, a university (I forget which one) did a test where they fired a Han crossbow at a Roman shield (from a good distance) and the bolt went through the shield. You have to remember, the Roman shield isn't all that thick. The reason it was good at deflecting enemy blows was because it was rounded, making the blows glance off. The only iron on it is in the center to guard the hand to the best of my knowledge. The rest is thin wood. Regular bows might have a hard time penetrating the shield, but the compound bows used by the Parthians proved that the shield wasn't as grand as everyone might've thought. If a compound bow can pierce the shield, then I'm sure that the crossbow could not only do the same, but possibly wound or maybe even kill the unfortunate fellow behind the shield.

Click to expand...

I think IDonT was referring to the Chinese repeating crossbow("Zhuge Nu" or whatever it's called), which used smaller and lighter bolts that probably wouldn't be able to penetrate a decent shield. However I've read that these bolts were also dipped in poison so that even a small cut would kill an enemy soldier.

Spike said:

I think IDonT was referring to the Chinese repeating crossbow("Zhuge Nu" or whatever it's called), which used smaller and lighter bolts that probably wouldn't be able to penetrate a decent shield. However I've read that these bolts were also dipped in poison so that even a small cut would kill an enemy soldier.

Click to expand...

Yes, the chu ko nu was a light repeating crossbow that could shoot up to 10 bolts in 15 seconds, but it lacked the range and power of heavier crossbows, so sometimes they dipped 'em in poison. Chinese army used this crossbow for 2,000 years, from Han to late Qing.

The western heavy crossbows, ones often seen depicted in drawings, have 2x the draw weight/force of a long bow and can punch right through a knight's armor. But their fire rate was much slower.

The benefit of crossbows and muskets is that you could train someone to shoot in weeks, versus longbow or short bow training could take years. Some historians would even claim that old gunpoweder hand-gunns/hand-cannon training could be done in as little as 15 minuets ("just lite that wicker..."), but I don't think that's the same as military drill which included formations, and not running away at first sight of the enemy, hehe.

InsertName said:

1. My bad, I didn't spell out the definition of "untrained." I really need to stop relying on people to use some small amount of common sense to figure out what one would mean by "untrained." Obviously the men were drilled in how to use a gun, but as far as military standards go, they were, essentially, untrained. They were about as trained as a Chinese footmen in that they were conscripted, given some weapons and very basic training, then told "Kill anyone who isn't on your side." I get this idea from the fact that every single book, show, or site I go to that deals with the civil war states this fact quite bluntly. Anyways, I didn't know that the bullet-shaped bullet was in use during the civil war. My bad.

Click to expand...

Military standards? What is your idea of military standards? Yes in 1861, both sides were "untrained". But in 1863-1865, where the majority of the slaughter occured, the armies of both sides were seasoned well trained veterans. They were disciplined, well lead (according to the standard military thinking of the day), motivated, and drilled as well as any Roman legion.

Might have to disagree with that though. Plains Indians quickly dropped the idea of muskets because muskets took a longer time to reload and was less accurate than their bow and arrows. And they were not using composite ones. It was only the advent of the Winchester repeating rifle that the Plains Indians finally abandoned their bow and arrow as they finally found a weapon far superior.

Click to expand...

I might agree with you but the US and British has already defeated the various tribes in the Eastern United States with their much more inaccurate flint lock muskets.

If you're still questioning the power of the Han crossbow, the range, the accuracy, and the rate of fire, then you need to seriously go back and read through the thread. From what I recally, a university (I forget which one) did a test where they fired a Han crossbow at a Roman shield (from a good distance) and the bolt went through the shield. You have to remember, the Roman shield isn't all that thick. The reason it was good at deflecting enemy blows was because it was rounded, making the blows glance off. The only iron on it is in the center to guard the hand to the best of my knowledge. The rest is thin wood. Regular bows might have a hard time penetrating the shield, but the compound bows used by the Parthians proved that the shield wasn't as grand as everyone might've thought. If a compound bow can pierce the shield, then I'm sure that the crossbow could not only do the same, but possibly wound or maybe even kill the unfortunate fellow behind the shield.

Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you here. The crossbow can pierce the scotum. My contention here is, is it enough? History has taught us that a well disciplined, well motivated men can charge and close with an enemy with much greater fire power than Han era crossbows.

Here I was worried that I'd come back and have missed a new page or two.

While both armies in the civil war relied on volunteers, the vast majority of troops in the army were conscripts. Let's see... Confederates begin drafting in 1862, and the Union begins drafting in 1863, the same year as Gettysburg. Hmm... now you want me to believe that all of the men in the battle of Gettysburg were elite troops with training comparable to the Roman army? Well, then again, why shouldn't a soldier with maybe four months of training act like such. Gettysburg ultimately showed that there would always be heavy casualties as long as the men in both armies were, for the most part, poorly trained. You could say that the south had the advantage, as far as training an experience, seeing as the unfortunate Union draftees would've only had three months of training, were they at Gettysburg, while Southern draftees would've had a year of training and/or experience in combat. Either way, both forces weren't, in any way, comparable (training wise) to the Roman legionaries.

Okay, can you please stop with the "Yes, but history has taught us that men can charge in the face of fire." Of course they can, nobody is disagreeing with that. At Waterloo, Scottish cavaliers charged into the French lines under fire, and killed a lot of Frenchmen... but in the end, they were all wiped out. Bravery can only get men so far. Another major difference between ancient battles and the various battles of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries is the fact that Romans carried large shields and wore armor. That really impeedes one's ability to charge quickly, and it leaves them all the more vulnerable to arrows by mindlessly charging. Arrows that are hitting them constantly, I might add, seeing as we've already discovered that the Chinese fired 'row-by-row' rather than all at once. The armor piercing crossbows would be devastating on there own, and when combined with the poison tipped arrows of the Chu Ko Nus, as some have brought up, the casualties woudl be even more devastating. By the time the Romans reach the archers' lines, Chinese infantry and cavalry would've moved out to meet them. The Chinese weren't incompetent, they wouldn't simply let the Romans wipe out their crossbowmen.