Rome vs Han China

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

Parthian had sent their emissaries to Han Dynasty during BC138 --BC123 .I saw it in Chinese history books(the books was written by Ban Gu before A.D. 92).The kingdom of Parthian(called An XI in Chinese history books) .
Hun grown up in BC 206 and defeated Da Yue Shi(an ancient nationality in China).Da Yue Shi moved to the east of Parthian.

so what I had said is not a joke.Parthian maybe go from China.

Inst,

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

Click to expand...

of course they had archers and large numbers of them and slingers, jsu tnot the unbalanced numbers that some are claiming for the Han. Halberbs vs manipultive legion, I favor the legion with it's close order drill, heavier armor,and 10 year+ average leanght of service of close combat experiance veterans.

Bluejacket,

Despite their many efforts, Rome's sway never extended past of what is now Iraq & Armenia- that speaks volumes about their economic & military policies- they were stopped in the Middle East while the Han decided to stop in Central Asia.

Click to expand...

Thats a Red Herring. Rome repeatedly took the parthian capitol but decided not to invest the resources require dot occupy the land. Thier is no evidence for the Han or any other ancient Chinese force beign able to cross the silk road in force or penetrate into the subcontinent. Rome has a huge advantage on extended campaigns simply becuase they have far fewer mouths to feed. Military horses cannot survive in working condition on stepped grass and require grain as well as needing far more water than a man.

What the huns and later mongols did cannot be duplicated by the Han. No civilised nation can afford remudas of 20-30 horse per man and the sheer acreage of grass or gains that would require

The bottom line is, the 2 armies would have meet only if the Han continued marching West since the Romans were unable to march East.

Click to expand...

Actually a shas bene shown repeatedly, Rome went where Rome wanted, although sometimes she couldn't stay there. The Han on the other might have decided to stop deciding everythign past a certain point wasnt Chinese, or they may have looked at the Gobi and the stans and the fierce residents and deicded any attempt to extend thier influence would be suicide

Really? I thought the Huns came back with a vengeance once the Han central authority collapsed. Don't know who those nomads were that destroyed Rome ... the empire fell apart in the 5th century, like the Han did 3 centuries earlier, although the eastern part continued to be a Roman empire for another thousand years. The different parts of the former western Roman empire fought each other for a century or two (not unlike The Three Kingdoms in China), during which time the eastern Romans (now called Byzantine) managed to reconquer Italy, north Africa and parts of Spain for a while. The Franks eventually got the upper hand and sort of united middle and west Europe for the first time, under Charlemagne ... but that was in 800 AD.

Click to expand...

The difference is that Han fell to internal divisions, not because of nomadic invaders. Each respective successive dynasty or kingdom, tries to assume the "heir" to the Han Dynasty. Compare the Byzantine Empire and Rome at 800AD to where China is at 800AD, where China has entered a new golden age and superpower period under the Tang, which to an extent was as big or bigger than the Han. A Chinese capital will not fall to a foreign invader until the Mongols in the medieval period and even they only lasted for a generation before they themselves succumbed to another warlike dynasty, the Ming.

Inst said:

A common fallacy:

The Great Wall was built in the Ming Dynasty, but ended up being worthless anyways.

Click to expand...

The Great Wall was started in the Qing, but only completed in the Ming.

Also, I can't believe Crobato listed the Zhuge Nu and the 6MC as advantages against the Romans; the former is useless against armor, while the latter mostly dates past the Han period.

Click to expand...

The Romans were still around past the Han, are they? Zhuge Nu would have been effective against skirmishers.

The equivalent conversation on CHF is actually more interesting. There, they've established that the Romans did have some archers within their formations, and that the Han army won primarily through its halberd units.

Click to expand...

Of course the Romans have archers and ballistas too. Just that they are no match to what the Hans have.

BLUEJACKET said:

I'm not going to post on this tread anymore

Click to expand...

Why not?

BLUEJACKET said:

1. the Bysantine army was more advanced than the Roman one from ~1.5K years before, when it was finaly defeated in the Fall of Constantinople
2. The Parthian cavalry was heavily influenced by nomads;
3. Despite their many efforts, Rome's sway [...] they were stopped in the Middle East while the Han decided to stop in Central Asia.

Click to expand...

Re 1: Why was it more advanced? That's a quality statement, based on what? The later Byzantine army was completely different from the Roman: organisation, troop type, the way soldiers were enlisted, everything. And that was around 1000 AD. By the time the city fell (another 5 centuries later), its army was completely different again.
Re 2: They were both adapted to fight the best possible way in their homelands: open land meaning cavalry and more cavalry. The lay of the land influenced both, not one the other.
Re 3: That's interesting: you say Rome WAS stopped, Han DECIDED to stop. That's another quality statement, so where's the explanation of both? If you just say "they both stopped" then that's more neutral, no discussion needed and all would agree. Now you have to explain your far reaching conclusion or it will be seen as invalid.

BLUEJACKET said:

The comparison with Vikings vs. Native Americans is out of proportion

Click to expand...

That's why I called it a joke. And so should any argument be treated that compares ethnically or geographically related armies to indirectly prove something, like saying "Byzantines lost to Seljuks, and Seljuks lost to Mongols. Therefore Han would defeat Romans." It's like comparing apples and ... what ... fish, or something.

BLUEJACKET said:

I dare to say that those under Roman domination would have revolted and greeted the Han as liberators, given the history of upraisings there.

Click to expand...

What history are you referring to? Border provinces were a buffer for Rome with it's neighboring empires. Any revolt was because those new border lands choose to be independent, the same reason why so many parts of the Han empire revolted as soon as its emperor showed weakness. Once the Roman economy took hold (and the buffer needed widening again), people were not interested in revolts anymore: who wants to lose wealth, peace and a huge internal economy?

BJ

[BJ=quote]Interesting theory. But actually Parthians - who were not nomads - go back to the Persians, who go back to the Medes and Assyrians, who go back to the earliest Mesopotanian civilisations and the Scythians. Most of those were cavalry or chariot armies from almost the begining, more than a thousand years before Han or Romans.[/quote]

The Parthians were descendants of the Scythians and who had abandoned normadic life to settle. The Persians, Medes and Assyrians were mainly infantry armies with chariots, and chariots are horrible when it comes to turns.

Unlike the Persians, Medes and Assyrians, the Huns lived on the horse. From childhood, they knew how to use a bow and arrow, otherwise you would starve. Thse are people who made a living riding on a horse and shooting an arrow. You cannot get any better a cavalry than this kind of people.

[zraver=quote]What the huns and later mongols did cannot be duplicated by the Han. No civilised nation can afford remudas of 20-30 horse per man and the sheer acreage of grass or gains that would require

Excuse me but what are you talking about? The Han were able to go past the Silk Road into Afghanistan. You also have to understand that the climate back then wasn't as hostile as it was now. There was a lot of grass that horses can feed, which is why there were numerous kingdoms and horse based normadic tribes in that area. The Hui Tribe won't be pulling off the particular strain of grass the Mongol ponies feed on, but the ecological disasters that would deplete the Mongols and bare the Gobi desert won't be happening for well over a millenia.

Far from underpopulated, the area was actually well populated---the Huns often greatly outnumber the Han in their encounters. Not just the Huns were living in the area, but people that were also proto-Mongols, proto-Turks, ancestors of Tocharians, Yuezhi (Kushans), etc,. The entire area is very able to sustain horses.

Click to expand...

Uhmm Roman Balista was superior in its won right beign more mobile (some were cart mounted as an early SPA) and possed Greek and Latin?Spanish fire. Roman Slingers also ouranged all period bows.

crobato said:

The Parthians were descendants of the Scythians and who had abandoned normadic life to settle. The Persians, Medes and Assyrians were mainly infantry armies with chariots, and chariots are horrible when it comes to turns.

Click to expand...

The Parthians we are talking about (fighting the Romans) are what were the earlier Persians and later Sassanids. Their 'overlords' might have Parthian-Scythian ancestors, but they were no longer nomads (sort of like post-Mongol China, I guess).

Not sure where you got your information from, but Persians and Medes were certainly not mainly infantry armies. They probably had a far higher percentage of cavalry in their armies than did the Han, escpecially the Medes.
Medes and Perians did not use chariots (unless you mean the scythed ones used as 'battering ram' by Persians). Assyrians used chariots as did early Chinese or anybody else around that time, then replaced them with cavalry, both bow and spear armed.

This is getting off topic, but experiments with light chariots showed that they were very maneuvrable indeed and very stable firing platforms. They also could carry vast amounts of arrows and were not as dependent on flat terrain as we might think. So overall much better than any kind of horse archers in a battle. The reason they dissappeared has more to do with their cost. Heavier chariots were of course less nimble, but they had a different job, just as later cataphract or knight cavalry was not meant to be nimble.

BJ

zraver said:

Uhmm Roman Balista was superior in its won right beign more mobile (some were cart mounted as an early SPA) and possed Greek and Latin?Spanish fire. Roman Slingers also ouranged all period bows.

Click to expand...

I kind of doubt that slingers outrange bows, certainly won't have the same level of accuracy.

Looking at the Roman ballista, I noticed something. For one thing, the Han crossbrow already uses a recurved bow design with laminar construction, much like the bows they use. The Roman ballista still has a standard curved bow, made entirely of wood. That isn't going to draw as strong as the crossbow with recurved laminar bow.