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 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 126

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

  1. #81
    PyrrhusIV's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,059
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    I think alot of People here are way to defensive about each side. Pro-Chinese, Pro-Roman etc .

    Also, they time periods of each civilization was different. Rome's Golden age is much different then The Han Golden Age.

    That's one small city. My home city is 6 million.
    I live in a town/Village of 1,500 people, or if you want me to spell it 1 thousand 5 hundred.

    PyrrhusIV

  2. #82
    Centurio
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    453
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    i would think the roman armies. with cavalry auxillaries that they would have more than likely hired and a competant commander, they could have adaptedt to just about anything that the chinese had. btw, romans had a primitive crossbow that they took from the greeks. reason would state that by seeing how effectivly the chinese used it that they would adopt it into the army as an intrical part and expand upon the idea ad infinitum. plus roman artillery was quite good at this time, the scorpion was able to fire a bolt at 120 mph.

  3. #83
    ChineseManchurian's Avatar Suguchi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    858
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poltemly
    i would think the roman armies. with cavalry auxillaries that they would have more than likely hired and a competant commander, they could have adaptedt to just about anything that the chinese had. btw, romans had a primitive crossbow that they took from the greeks. reason would state that by seeing how effectivly the chinese used it that they would adopt it into the army as an intrical part and expand upon the idea ad infinitum. plus roman artillery was quite good at this time, the scorpion was able to fire a bolt at 120 mph.
    That's completely false, it shows that you probaly don't know anything about India and China miltary.(by the way I don't know much about Gupta also, but I know something about the Kushan empire, I think they should be having more simuliar army)

  4. #84
    PyrrhusIV's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,059
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    ChineseManchurian,

    Calm down, he is right is many of those aspects. Entitle him to his own opinion, do not start a flame war.

    PyrrhusIV

  5. #85
    ChineseManchurian's Avatar Suguchi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    858
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    :laughing:
    Quote Originally Posted by PyrrhusIV
    ChineseManchurian,

    Calm down, he is right is many of those aspects. Entitle him to his own opinion, do not start a flame war.

    PyrrhusIV
    well, am I flaming?^^ then sry about that. :original:

  6. #86
    Centurio
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    453
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    dude, romans were masters of feild artillery peices, an inheritance of everyone they conquer who added to it. the roman army adapted for each theater it was in. the legions in syria were different than those in spain or gemania. that is a factor that made them so effective, when they found a good tactic, they adapted it into their army. Phalanx, manipular legions, marian legions, etc

  7. #87
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    romans had a primitive crossbow that they took from the greeks
    They didn't use it very often. This can be explained by the fact that it lacked the trigger mechanism of the Han crossbow, which matched the precision of a modern rifle. The Roman crossbow also were designed in such a way that only part of the person's weight can be used when drawing the string back, while the Han crossbow it's the entire weight, thus more draw strength. There's others such as grid sight, concurve design, but I'm not going to get into it right now.

    plus roman artillery was quite good at this time, the scorpion was able to fire a bolt at 120 mph.
    Roman and Han artillery were about the same. Both had a range of about 400 meters. However, the Romans seemed to use more of it, while the Han only used it on battles where manuevering wasn't much of a big deal.

    i would think the roman armies. with cavalry auxillaries that they would have more than likely hired and a competant commander, they could have adaptedt to just about anything that the chinese had.
    I really hate went people start saying someone would be militarily stronger since they will "adapt". Everybody adapts. Else they die out. If the Han/Romans/Guptas faced a force like...say the modern US army, then they'll get their butts kicked no matter how much they adapt. To adpat successfully one must have a stronger economy than the enemy, so that they would be able to take more pounding, and thus have more time to adapt. This is why Carthage lost to Rome, even though Hannibal was kicking Roman armies around like no other during the earlier part of the war. However, if the economy of Carthage was mightier than that of Rome, than history might have been very different.

    dude, romans were masters of feild artillery peices, an inheritance of everyone they conquer who added to it. the roman army adapted for each theater it was in. the legions in syria were different than those in spain or gemania. that is a factor that made them so effective, when they found a good tactic, they adapted it into their army. Phalanx, manipular legions, marian legions, etc
    I think that can go without saying, for all three sides.
    Last edited by Anthrophobia; September 18, 2005 at 07:02 PM.

  8. #88
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    I would say China would have used some tactic to fight romans because during the han dynasty warring states age.. i think it was the battle of chi bi they got the enemy to tie the ships together and burnt the line taking all the ships down.. and other battles during the yellow turban they dug a big hole and somehow made a little floor stronger enought for about 100 men to step on it then break the floor with traps, or also the brige tech used in the book Sun Tzu art of war which was around at this time... it was to create a sand brige and walk acorss to lure the enemy to cross and then break it so it would flood the enemy.
    And im not a pro chinese but during the time of han dynasty they have been using a tactic which called rain of arrows, if u ever watch the movie with jet li called hero, that was not made up. that was a tactic used to fight wars. but they develop a tactic to protect the arrows by having spear infantry foam a wall
    so all u say was a buch of spearmens its not like 100 in front likes like 10000men line.

    the main different between roman army and china army was CHina was used to command 100ks troops and roman not,
    the main reason Roman would still fight is because the rule was to fight or come back as a coward and get ur balls cut off.

  9. #89
    PyrrhusIV's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,059
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Fobby, Never take a movie, especially one as digitally edited as Hero, to portray scenes of battle back then. We have no pictures (polariod) video's, etc of what it is like. What I can tell you is they did not have that many arrow's, it is a movie, not history.

    The rest of your post basically said they made a hole in the ground, and the enemy fell in.

    PyrrhusIV

  10. #90
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    .....It is a ture tactic...i didnt take it from the movie but thats a picture of wat it might look like...and the hole in the ground is a other tactic the chinese people used as recorded in the warring states history

    and for the hole part u know how ppl hunt and cover a hole in dirty and branches and leaves..it was kinda like taht but a bigger version and it work succusful.

    and yes china did have that many arrows....the army main tactic rely on arrows like that other post said even a infantry men would have crossbows.. as u can see how important bows and crossbows were important in chinese histroy.
    and Yes china farmer had to produce more food then any other place in ther world because there were not much place in china to farm..
    Last edited by Fobby; September 18, 2005 at 07:52 PM.

  11. #91
    subedei the great's Avatar Yamabe
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    256
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fobby
    I would say China would have used some tactic to fight romans because during the han dynasty warring states age.. i think it was the battle of chi bi they got the enemy to tie the ships together and burnt the line taking all the ships down
    The warring states period and the Han dynasty are two completely different periods in Chinese history, and what I think your referring to happens like 500 years in the future of what period you are referring to.


  12. #92
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Hmmm...warring states period was due to the fact of han dynasty....the emperor of the han dynasty was still alive during this state....

  13. #93
    subedei the great's Avatar Yamabe
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    256
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    the warring states was before the han dynasty... i believe your referring to the Three Kingdoms period? The warring states was where the qin emerged, and the qin are the dynasty before the han.


  14. #94
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    no man u gotta read up on ur history.....han then 3 kingdom...
    it stared as han vs yello turban... then han vs dong zho and then civil war started and fueduel lords came out

  15. #95
    PyrrhusIV's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,059
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Fobby, your grammar is horrible, please check before you type. No offense, but you sound way to pro-chinese like i have noticed on this thread very often.

    PyrrhusIV

  16. #96
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    im just giving info on the chinese tactics at the time cuz i dont know much about indians and roman tactics other then playin rome total war.....but i actually read up on chinese histroy and understand how they fight in wars..im even in a chinese history class in unvi...
    i know that roman had to fight hard and the main reason they fought so hard and not retreat was because if they retreat they are consider cowards and will get their private parts cut off

  17. #97
    ChineseManchurian's Avatar Suguchi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    858
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Warring state period and Han dynasty are different period, After Qin disbanded there was a civil war, then Liu Pang re united China into Han dynasty and belief Taolism. I don' understand what Fobby saying by the way.....

  18. #98
    Wimmer
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    125
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html read it up.....warring states is the kingdom period and was not after qin it was after han..

  19. #99
    ChineseManchurian's Avatar Suguchi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    858
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fobby
    http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html read it up.....warring states is the kingdom period and was not after qin it was after han..
    dude In Chinese history that era were not called Warring State period, it's called North-South dynasty era, primaryly the warring state period is referring to the history around 600BC-220 BC.

  20. #100
    PyrrhusIV's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,059
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default

    You know Roman tactics from playing the computer? From playing Rome: Total War? That is your knowledge of Rome...ouch.

    I have enough knowledge about China to know their culture, way of life etc. I am taking my major in College on Classical History, i have also read deeply into Graeco-Roman History (323-476) also, i've done research into the Medieval Period. That is off topic though.

    When you are talking about a Roman/Chinese war, you have to consider their golden ages, the commander, the troops, the terrain etc. Example: if it had rained before the battle, or the day before, the chinese would be in trouble. A bow can barely fire at all if it is MOIST.

    PyrrhusIV

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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