Rome vs Han China

1,Both armies are good at building fortifications.
2,Both armies have ballistic weapon which are able to break rank the compact infantry formations.
3,Both armies are disciplined. I know that acient chinese soldiers were following the sounds of drum to attack and follow the sounds of gong to retreat. Also there are many singal flags to command change formation during battle.
These are the basic formations used by chinese but I can't find our photos of these so that I show japanese use the same learned from sun zi:





[

previously noted but needs to be reiterated: Battle of Carrhae (horse archers were equivalent of modern air dominance. heavy infantry would be been destroyed if caught in the open, even the heavily armored calvary of midieval europe succumbed to the mongol's horse archers...unlike hannibal, however, chinese were masters of siege warfare.



The Parthians, although outnumbered, used 1000 heavily armed and armored horsemen, called "cataphracts," in conjunction with 9000 horse archers to defeat the Roman heavy infantry. The horse archers shot repeated volleys of arrows into the densely packed formation of the Roman legionaries. To sustain their barrage, the Parthians employed camels to carry additional loads of arrows.

When the Romans attempted to charge the horse archers, the Parthians followed their custom of feigning retreat, turning suddenly and shooting arrows at the enemy while fleeing (known as the "Parthian shot"). If the Romans tried to form into a protective testudo, the cataphracts would charge them and the legionnaires would be unable to fight effectively due to their tight formation. Although the Romans' large scuta gave them some measure of protection against the volleys of arrows, many soldiers eventually collapsed from thirst and heat exhaustion even when otherwise unwounded due to the exertion required in attempting to defend themselves from the seemingly endless fusillades of Parthian arrows. The Parthian arrows were devastating, "When Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." (Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV)

Regarding the topic, I would advance that an engagement of equal sized units would probably result in a Roman victory. An engagement of averaged sized units would probably result in a Han victory. Again, based on the limited research (no primary sources...can't read Chinese) the size of the Han force would probably be triple the size of the Roman formation. Both forces were superb engineers, both had good middle management, both had exemplary logistic capabilities, and both had political appointees in the upper echelons. Why a proabablitiy for the Romans in an equal fight? Small unit leadership and initiative. Again, I have been unable to read enough Chinese literature to know for sure, but, based on what has been translated, during the Han period, while Officers were required to pass individual skills tests, there is no mention of the NCO Corps, the key in a close engagement and, historically, the linchpin of many of the Roman victories.
Regarding TTP's (tactics, techniques, and procedures) I find both armies facinating with regard to their adapability technical prowess. The Han perfection of the crossbow mechanism inherited from the Chin (Qin) as well as the adoption of northern nomadic cavalry tactics are just two points of sophistication I enjoy. Tactically, both armies at this time employed tight formations, with the basic Han infantry formation actually tighter than a normal Roman one (large shields were used to protect the ranks of crossbowmen and bowmen behind). The integration of Bowmen into the basic 5-10 man squad of the 50 man platoon is another inovation I find facinating. The pros of this formation against a cavalry based army are obvious. The cons vs. a hvy infantry based force is also obvious. The Han practice of integrating allied forces into their army instead of employing them as whole units was alien to the Romans, and pose both positive and negative attributes for the force. Should an ally "turn", it is unlikley they will do so in numbers great enough to pose a significant threat, however, the practice of placing them in the front rank of your infantry (good if you want to preserve your force from missile attack) could prove a disastor in the face of a concerted infantry engagement. However, based on the available works, the average sized Han force would DWARF a Roman force. The entire imperial army was limited to 100K regulars. The AVERAGE Han army for such a large undertaking would certainly triple that number. THAT is the secret strength of the HAN. It was not enough to competently employ 20K troops. Han armies were HUGE. And to use a well worn phrase, "Quantitiy has a quality all it's own!"

Respectfully submitted.

A: Roman auxillarys:
Roman auxiallarys where no cannon fodder, in fact, troops like the Sarmatian cavalry or Germanic heavy infantry fought a bit differently but not worse than the Romans.
In addition, the thing with the roman auxiallarys was that they could became romans if they fought well.
Former "auxillarys" like Arminius became, although born Germans/Gauls/Sarmatians, "knights" of the Roman empire.
The fact that the roman legions werent conscripts was one of their main advantadges.

Click to expand...

They were often worse equipped as the Legionaries. There's a reason why the Auxilia infantrymen wore lorica hamata instead of the lorica segmentata.

B: Height
In addition, after my own experience in China, i think that the height difference may also be a factor.
As far as I know, the average roman was bigger than the average Chinese, while a Germanic/Gaulish auxiallary was significantly bigger.
Its not so much of a factor in actual combat, but its quite effective in a psychologic way.

Click to expand...

That is a common myth. Chinese were actually very tall peoples in ancient times, read PiSigma's post. Chinese are actually recovering their height very rapidly nowadays due to improved nutrition.

C: Running away:
I have read the 3 Kingdoms, as well as similiar works like the Gallic Wars or Germania by Caesar or Tacitus.

The theme of the commanding officer beeing killed or even only forced of in a preliminary duel, followed by a rout of his army, was extremly more frequent in the three Kingdoms.
Prelimanry duels did not happen in Rome (They sometimes happened in fights between Barbarian tribes, but also rarely. In addition they ended with one guy getting killed instead of one guying beeing forced back). Also, Romans did not flee that much when their general was killed.

Click to expand...

You've read SanGuoYanYi, or Romance of the Three Kingdoms, not SanGuoZhi, or Three Kingdoms ambition (may be mistranslation here). SanGuoZhi is the history, SanGuoYanYi has a lot of fictional parts. In actual history Chinese generals DID NOT duel the enemy's general, and the Chinese troops, of course, DID NOT retreat.

D: Tactically:
The Chinese could counter the superior Roman infantry by using their sophisticated shooting tactics, the Romans could counter by attacking at night or doing other things to disrupt the chinese order.
Both armys had the neccesary means of dealing with the enemy, it would come down to the individual commander.

Click to expand...

See PiSigma's account.

Realize that Chinese troops did not only employ great tactics, they often used other ways to weaken the enemy before even engaging them, such as using attrition and morale as a weapon, etc. You claimed to have read the Three Kingdoms yet you know not of these strategems that were frequently employed.

E: Logistics:
However, a real war between these nation would have ended in a draw.
There is no way to supply forces big enough to be a threat in such a distance from your own base of power.
Can you imagine the logistic nightmare of having to ferry 100.000s of chinese troops from the Yangtze to Byzantium?
Or getting Heavy Germanic/Gaulic auxilia through Persia without pissing off the entire population?
There could have some limited border clashes, a Legion getting shot to pieces, a chinese detachmen getting ambushed but not much more.

Click to expand...

Even back in the Qin Dynasty (Which was the dynasty before Han), China (to be more specific, QinShiHuang) has built great highways for chariots and troops to travel on, and these highways were no less efficient than the Roman road systems. Qin was an authoritarian dictatorship, and they needed these highways to suppress the people.

See IDont's post.

Last Centurys Chinese beeing taller than Europeans? Pretty unlikely, as reports from last centurys western diplomats in China claim them as beeing petty small.

Click to expand...

I would like to see a link of that. You're probably thinking of Koreans or Japanese, because they, unlike Chinese, were indeed very short peoples in the old days.

Actually, Chinese 1on1 fighting systems like WuShu also claim that, assuming roughly equal skill, the bigger guy will win.

Click to expand...

This is open war, there will not be any 1v1.
I highly duobt there are any WuShu books or master that would say "The bigger guy would win in this circumstance." I would stand corrected if you can prove it to me.

In a fight, height is a positive factor, and can get pretty important in a mellee.

Click to expand...

The point is moot. I think we can all agree that Chinese were just as, if not higher, than Romans and Gauls.

Yes, they where within one day from each other, however, they could not expand much more because they just reached the end of their possible expansion.

Click to expand...

Now THAT is a desperate argument.

The size of the army one can succesfully keep in the field dircetly depends on the distance from the own base of power.

Click to expand...

Assuming that you've read Three Kingdoms, you know that Chinese troops have more ways to get food than shipping them from China.

Chinese depends on lighter mobile infantry while Roman is based around heavy infantry. the Chinese should try to flank them with a pinch attack with heavy archers in the center to keep the heavy troop pin in the middle.

The Roman are not the best troop to lead against mounted units. The Chinese cavalry has a slight advantage to Roman counterpart as they learn quite abit from their nothern neighbours as well as domestic breeding of warhorse that are faster and larger than roman ones.

Assuming that you've read Three Kingdoms, you know that Chinese troops have more ways to get food than shipping them from China.

Click to expand...

those plan work easier in china because china is agriculture rich and alot more troops can live off it. if the battle took place in central asia, logistic might prove harder. however the size of the army doesn't really depend on distance but the duration. each soldiers can provide for himself with enough rations to last a week or two before they need resupplying... if battle are won quickly, the army can prey off the supplies of the enemy, else the forces can disfuse and take turns to hit the enemy while the rest are assigned with resupplying the current vanguard force...

Lets start with the height/weight issue:

Point A: I have succesfully participated in international full contact competitions. I have never seen a competition without weight classes.
This does include chinese Wu-Shu/Gung-Fu or Sanda fights.
In addition, i did participate in some "reacreated" mellee battles. If the other side has someone beeing 2 heads taller than you, it makes quite an impression (even if you know that he is a nice guy and that you wont die, and even on a pretty trained, this means military training and some years of full contact martial arts, individual).

I have been in Germany (for like 20 years) and China(region around Beijing/Baoding), and I still stand by my claim that there is a height difference, which leads to an advantadge in a mellee.

There are some indirect persian(around 1000.AC though, so quite away from the roman times) sources, which claimed that the crusading European where big, while the "eastern neighbors" where small.
I have also been in other European countries like Sweden, England and Spain. Although every one does get bigger, the height differences between lets say Swedes and Spaniards, seems to stay roughly equal.
I do not see why it should be different for the height differences between Kelts and Chinese.


To the logistic thing:
I do NOT know exactly how an army of 10K-300K was kept in the field, but i am quite certain that it was a logistical nightmare.
As a rule of thumb, logicatical nightmares get much worse if you are far away from your homelands.
A war would propably start with one side moving with a large force trhough the territiory of the other side, while the defendant is mobilizing.
Therefore, a clash would not be "on the border" but quite far away from it.
As both sides had a lot of "land to burn" (military phrases for trading space for time, the Romans could live with Chinese forces temporally ravaging the caspian see, as could the Chinese if the romans would have attacked), the defender should have a serious advantadge, which would, assuming competetent leadership, lead to the point that the defender, no matter who, would win.

There are some good wiki to read about to start with :



An interesting thing I have noted is that, the Chinese was far more advanced society due to the invention of paper, and the wider spread of technological advance due to it. The Rome was also under stress economically when the trade imbalance with Chinese was at an unacceptable level due to silk trade (and other goods) that the out flow of precious metals, and good, was too great that the senate unsuccessfully try to stop it.


From wiki:
"The Senate issued, in vain, several edicts to prohibit the wearing of silk, on economic and moral grounds: the importation of Chinese silk caused a huge outflow of gold, and silk clothes were considered to be decadent and immoral"

The Fact that the Chinese are shorter today means nothing 2000 years ago.

I can tell you that back then the average Chinese soldier was 1.78m or 5'10 and the average Roman soldier was 1.67 or 5'6 ft. Therefore, the reverse would be true and the Chinese would hold the psycological advantage of height.

If the Romans and the Chinese were geographically closer perhaps even neighbors, I would place my bet on the Chinese defeating the Romans.

What we know as history is sort of just tiny fragment of it. It lacks the context of the time. There are many things we are not certain, and historians only make assumptions on it. For example, the height and the build of the people, there are no written text or valid proof to say one is taller or stronger than the other army, if one can argue something like that, how about Kungfu? Surely the chinese would have slaughter the romans because they are trained in kung-fu... LOL. A lot of things are simply not recorded in history that provides a fuller picture.



Personally, I think this thread is kinda pointless, nobody would EVER KNOW who would win...We can argue till we are one foot in grave, and guess what, it still won't make any point more valid than others. It's like trying to argue what if Hitler did manage to win africa, would it be able to win the war and invade america.. or Ghengis Khan if he didn't die would he have conquer the world....etc etc. - History is as it is because it is as it should be.

I didn't read all the post but I read about 10+ pages... to all those people who assumes that the Han army will fall under the blades of the Roman Legion, you are assuming here that the Han generals will come to a direct battle with the Roman generals when both side are at full force. I mean... nothing is stopping the Han army from using other tactics such as ambush (not talking about ghoaul or European style ambushes either) or attacks using geographic settings. The Art of War has long taught its students that direct confrontation between armies is the last option any state should take during conflict.

And I laughed when I saw people trying to calculate how long it will take the Romans to cover the distance between the two armies. What makes you think the crossbow men will have to stay still when they see the Roman legions are close? (The generals can order the men to retreat, or even lure the legions into more favorable locations) I mean, if you're out numbered badly, and you are charging, you can only chase after a portion of the opposing army (and here I think they'd be after the missile troops), that leaves the rest of your enemy stationary, resting... and even though you can claim Romans are more physically fit, okay... but if you wanna say each of them can chase down 5 people 1 after another I think that sounds more like bs to me.