View Poll Results: In a Pan-Eurasian war, who would win?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • the Roman Empire

    48 57.14%
  • the Gupta Empire (India)

    10 11.90%
  • the Han Dynasty (China)

    26 30.95%
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 126

Thread: the Gupta Empire vs the Han Dynasty vs Rome: Who would win?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default the Gupta Empire vs the Han Dynasty vs Rome: Who would win?

    Let's say, hypothetically, that it's the second century AD. The Roman Empire, for some reason or another, declares war on the Gupta Empire in India, and sends all of the legionaries and Auxiliaries she can muster. Meanwhile, the Han Dynasty in China tries to capitalize on this moment and declares war on both of them. We'll say for the sake of arguement that the sheer distance between the 3 regional powers is not a factor. Who do you think would emerge victorious?
    Quote Originally Posted by smoke
    Well smoking is just for a special blend of people. People who are outgoing, friendly, who enjoy having a good time and take life one step at a time. Smokers are the best people. They are adventurous, loyal, good looking and the most popular people in your class. When you see people having fun, there is bound to be a cigarette around!
    My name is AUC, and I used to be a fat kiddy console gamer.

  2. #2
    Kscott's Avatar New and Improved!
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Wtf
    Posts
    6,360

    Default

    China...

    Its population for one would be overwhelming. Hanniabal had crushed the Romans in major battles, but the roman population could just support more armies..

    The Roman legions would most likely have the advantage, in tactics and skill, but they would be up against very hard odds in numbers..

    side note, wrong forum....

    Patron of Basileous Leandros I/Grimsta/rez/ Aemilianus/Publius/ Vizigothe/Ahiga /Zhuge_Liang Under Patronage of Lord Rahl
    MY TWC HISTORY

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
    side note, wrong forum....
    Quite right. As it is historical discussion - though hypothetical - moved to Vestigia Vetustatis.

    Patron of Felixion, Ulyaoth, Reidy, Ran Taro and Darth Red
    Co-Founder of the House of Caesars


  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
    China...

    Its population for one would be overwhelming. Hanniabal had crushed the Romans in major battles, but the roman population could just support more armies..

    The Roman legions would most likely have the advantage, in tactics and skill, but they would be up against very hard odds in numbers..

    side note, wrong forum....
    To be sure, China had more men in its empire than than Rome or the Guptas. But it was only an 11% lead over Rome, at least in 14 BCE (China had 60 million men). In the 2nd century AD I'm sure there would be more of a difference, but nothing astronomical. Still, I agree in that China would at the very least be able to put up such a fight that it would be a humbling experience to the Roman psyche of superiority.
    Quote Originally Posted by smoke
    Well smoking is just for a special blend of people. People who are outgoing, friendly, who enjoy having a good time and take life one step at a time. Smokers are the best people. They are adventurous, loyal, good looking and the most popular people in your class. When you see people having fun, there is bound to be a cigarette around!
    My name is AUC, and I used to be a fat kiddy console gamer.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ab Urbe Condita
    To be sure, China had more men in its empire than than Rome or the Guptas. But it was only an 11% lead over Rome, at least in 14 BCE (China had 60 million men). In the 2nd century AD I'm sure there would be more of a difference, but nothing astronomical. Still, I agree in that China would at the very least be able to put up such a fight that it would be a humbling experience to the Roman psyche of superiority.
    When you knows the Roman legions were much experienced, probably you havn't know who defeat Xiong-Nu,Qiang,Kushan(Few battles),Dong Hu, Wu Huan those nomadic tribe.
    Also.....Kushan empire would have much with Roman, their overwelmed elephants gonna give lots of troubles to Roman Heavy Infantry.(Range weapons are better use against elephants, but Roman archers,cavalry.....)
    And the question is....why Kushan is not on the list?

  6. #6

    Default

    The distance would make the outcome without a victor. But I'll add details to the army.

    Both the Roman army and the Chinese army at the time were extremely harsh on training. In fact, the Qin(the dynasty before the Han) were so harsh that anyone late 1 second for duty was immediately executed on the spot, no matter how good the excuse. Chances are the commanding officer wouldn't even listen to the excuse. In fact, this type of discipline was too harsh, and probably contributed to Qin's decline. In the Han dynasty, if a archer missed his target three times in a row, not only is he punished, but also the general above him. Rank was based off of merit, instead of blood, so usually its the good soldier that goes to the top. To be a commander one had to take tests on warfare. In Rome, their practice swords/armaments are twice as heavy as the real ones, and like the Han, there are military academies. Both Han and Rome trained in various sports like wrestling, swimming, etc...

    I don't know much about the Guptas so I can't judge them(but they did have a bloody history of continuous warfare in the Mauryan empire before them, so their probably pretty knowledgible in war). However, after seeing some of their armor, I noticed they were very similar to East Asian armor. Thus I'm assuming that they, like the Han, placed more emphasis on ranged weaponry rather than hand-to-hand combat.

    Edit: If you can vote for "no one will win, they'll all quit once the war starts because it's stupid to fight wars against a country you can't even send an army to", then I'll vote for that. It's better to just compare their military strengths and weaknesses against each other instead.
    Last edited by Anthrophobia; September 16, 2005 at 11:37 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    the Gupta empire would have the smallest chance in my view. Also I have a suggestion fot this: add Parthia due to the fact they were in between Rome and India at the time this happens, if I am right?

  8. #8
    Kscott's Avatar New and Improved!
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Wtf
    Posts
    6,360

    Default

    People voting for Roman Empire please explain why.. If you have an argument for it please present it..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ab Urbe Condita
    To be sure, China had more men in its empire than than Rome or the Guptas. But it was only an 11% lead over Rome, at least in 14 BCE (China had 60 million men). In the 2nd century AD I'm sure there would be more of a difference, but nothing astronomical. Still, I agree in that China would at the very least be able to put up such a fight that it would be a humbling experience to the Roman psyche of superiority.

    China could have fielded atleast an army of a million men. Now, chinese archers would been able to dampen Roman men, plus their numbers at the time would most likely been under a hundred thousand. I cant see any roman chance of winning, unless lead by a VERY good commander...

    Further more, i know you said ingore it, but realistically, Rome would never had expanded to China.. If they sent an army to conquer it would have lost so many men from the climates it would have to cross.... If China had invaded the same would follow, and they would have been crushed, as even if they had gotten a sizable army acroos, it would have gone through many empires, and ultimatly would have had the same problem as Hannibal, if not beaten outright as it surley would have been...
    Last edited by Justinian; September 16, 2005 at 11:22 PM.

    Patron of Basileous Leandros I/Grimsta/rez/ Aemilianus/Publius/ Vizigothe/Ahiga /Zhuge_Liang Under Patronage of Lord Rahl
    MY TWC HISTORY

  9. #9

    Default

    same question with Parthia, why isn't that on the list?

  10. #10
    Kscott's Avatar New and Improved!
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Wtf
    Posts
    6,360

    Default

    The question is mainly whose army was better, negating distances, home field advantage etc...


    Parthia, could have been crushed by rome, by a competant commander, but it would have taken good cavalry.. Rome would probably have needed some auxiallry at this time for a good army against parthia...

    And if you want to ask why Parthia isnt on, maybe it would be wise to explain why they shpuld be on..

    Patron of Basileous Leandros I/Grimsta/rez/ Aemilianus/Publius/ Vizigothe/Ahiga /Zhuge_Liang Under Patronage of Lord Rahl
    MY TWC HISTORY

  11. #11
    Osceola's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Port Richey, Florida
    Posts
    4,660

    Default

    Considering this my friends, is the time in which the great Zhuge Liang lived, along with Cao Coa, Liu Bei and Sun Jian.. ALONG with the Huns and Nanman.. ALONG with the chu-ko-nu and other miracles of Chinese ingenuity.

    Han China all the way.
    Team Member <3

  12. #12
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    Did the Chinese have the excellent logistics system the Romans did?

  13. #13

    Default

    Roma Victor.

    The Indians were militarily less developed than Europe or China, and part of the reason was the difficult geography. Every time they came up against a non-Indian power (Alexander's Macedonians, Tamerlane's Mongols) they lost, even if the same geography that kept them underdeveloped also kept them from being effectively colonized.

    The Chinese were decent, but they were not as good as the Romans and did not have the combination of mobility and firepower (or at least not in sufficient numbers) that gave the horse peoples an edge over the Romans.
    "In war, with its enormous friction, even the mediocre is quite an achievement" - Moltke

  14. #14
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Such questions cannot be answered and we cannot speculate as suficient information is not available... And even if we had the info who could predict?


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  15. #15
    Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wretched hive of scum and villany
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    China; Rome would need to adapt its troops to the cavalry warfare.

  16. #16
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    Or maybe China wouldhave to adapt to fight against masses of heavy infantry, who after repeated battle with cavalry heavy armies, might have some forces armed with pikes and such.

  17. #17

    Default

    The Indians were militarily less developed than Europe or China, and part of the reason was the difficult geography. Every time they came up against a non-Indian power (Alexander's Macedonians, Tamerlane's Mongols) they lost, even if the same geography that kept them underdeveloped also kept them from being effectively colonized.
    What Alexander faced in India was only a local warlord, not THE India of the time. According to India sources Alexander actually lost. But in Greek sources he got homesick and left. Anyway, the Mauryan empire which came before the Gupta empire managed to take a huge chunk of territory away from Macedonia, so I don't know what you mean by losing every time they came across a non-Indian power.

    Did the Chinese have the excellent logistics system the Romans did?
    Hell, even the warring states before the Han managed to come up with 600,000 armies when they just suffered a defeat causing them to lose 200,000. Han mobility is very impressive. 20 to 30 miles a day.. When talking of pure calvary armies it's obviously higher than that. Probably about 50 miles a day like the Mongols and various other nomads(horses are faster than humans, duh).
    Last edited by Anthrophobia; September 17, 2005 at 11:09 AM.

  18. #18
    Pra's Avatar Sir Lucious Left Foot
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    4,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pompeius Minus
    Roma Victor.

    The Indians were militarily less developed than Europe or China, and part of the reason was the difficult geography. Every time they came up against a non-Indian power (Alexander's Macedonians, Tamerlane's Mongols) they lost, even if the same geography that kept them underdeveloped also kept them from being effectively colonized.

    The Chinese were decent, but they were not as good as the Romans and did not have the combination of mobility and firepower (or at least not in sufficient numbers) that gave the horse peoples an edge over the Romans.
    It is quite easy to dismiss the Indians as military invalid or even incompetant. The fact is that such an analysis belies a true understanding of why the Indians lost in these particular circumstances.

    It is true that Porus was defeated by Alexander. However, so did the Persians, and even more the battle against Porus cost the Macedonians more casualities than in any other campaign. What is more starteling is that Porus' empire didn't represent all of Indian but rather a small section. If an Indian monarch had the prudence and capability to unify India and use all of its resources during the time Alexander had attacked, it is doubtfull if Alexander could have conquered all of India.

    With respect to the Mongols, I would like to say that nearly every pre-gunpowder civilized race has lost to the horse people. The Chinese were defeated by the Mongols, who were consequently sinicized; if I am not mistaken, I believe that the even Romans lost to a brand of the horse people.

    Now when we examine the Guptas I would like to refer to something:

    Skandagupta took over the Gupta empire and soon had to face with the formidable enemy, the Huns (Hepthalites). He successfully repelled their early invasions and proved to be able king and administrator in time of crisis. Skandagupta in Junagadh rock inscription is described as `embraced by the goddess of wealth and splendour who is chosen by Shri-Laxmi, a goddess of wealth'. This theme is reflected upon his coins of King and Shri-Laxmi type. These coins show victorious king and his divine consort Shri-Laxmi (who was considered as his second wife waiting on him invisibly) standing beneath the imperial Garuda (a mythical hawk like bird) banner which signify victories of Gupta kings over barbarian Huns.
    http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/Sgupta1.html

    In spite of heroic efforts of SkandaGupta, Gupta empire did not survive long the shock it received from invasion of the Huns and internal uprising of Pushyamitras. Although there was some sort of unity till reign of the last king Budhagupta in the 6th century AD.
    http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/Sgupta1.html

    Throughout antiquity, India has not remained or imposed as much of an intimidating attitude simply because it was to fractious and fought to many internal wars to be able to consentrate on those enemies outside India's doors.
    Under patronage of Emperor Dimitricus Patron of vikrant1986, ErikinWest, VOP2288


    Anagennese, the Rise of the Black Hand

    MacMillan doesn't compensate for variable humidity,wind speed and direction or the coriolis effect. Mother nature compensates for where Macmillan's crosshairs are.

  19. #19

    Default

    Romans also have to face large group of such strong range unit crossbow power, which Roman legion armor hardly handle it.

    The Indians were militarily less developed than Europe or China, and part of the reason was the difficult geography. Every time they came up against a non-Indian power (Alexander's Macedonians, Tamerlane's Mongols) they lost, even if the same geography that kept them underdeveloped also kept them from being effectively colonized.

    The Chinese were decent, but they were not as good as the Romans and did not have the combination of mobility and firepower (or at least not in sufficient numbers) that gave the horse peoples an edge over the Romans.

    No, not really, Indians have strong miltary power as huge group of elephants...but Gupta empire is really not strong as Kushan, Kushan empire have fought many battle with Seleucids and defeat them many times, make peace treaty with them. So Kushan empire gives 500 elephants as present, later on Seleucids use those elephants well against Egyptian(Africa elephants) and Romanslbut you know what, Kushan empire have almost 10000 elephants......

    no, that was the biggest mistake you make, I think Roman is weak at combination units, look how weak is Roman calvary and archers. Roman usually hire some Sarmartian mercenary and Numidian as their calvalry force, you know why right?
    from the other side, the Chinese infantry may not able to against Rome, but large force of crossbow, and calvalry will give them lots of trouble. in about 100BC Chinese have trained the cavalry is even better than the Hun in the north and successfully defeats them.
    Crossbow.....I will say no more, you have to know when Europeans start to use it.

  20. #20
    ShangTang's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    China could easily field much more massive armies than Rome. The Legions were good, but they could not beat highly trained forces that outnumbered them 6 to 1.


    "AVDENTES FORTVNA JUVAT"

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •