Roman Empire vs Han China

[DukeCanada]

Who do you think would win. Its a difficult decision but I would put my money on Rome.

Edit: I forgot to add a poll, is there any way a mod can help me out and add a poll

[Poach]

Roman infantry was hardcore, but China had manpower.

Also, what era of Empire are we talking? Their armies were pretty poor near the end.

[conon394]

Roman infantry was hardcore, but China had manpower.

Nope - given the range of error - you are looking at parity in population.

Edit: I forgot to add a poll, is there any way a mod can help me out and add a poll

Not possible anymore - check out the sticky

[Poach]

So you think the Han Chinese would field an army similar in size to the Roman Army if both nations fully mobilised? I thought the Han Chinese would enjoy a numerical advantage over their Roman foes, though I openly admit I'm no expert on China. Where's Bushbush?

[conon394]

So you think the Han Chinese would field an army similar in size to the Roman Army if both nations fully mobilised? I thought the Han Chinese would enjoy a numerical advantage over their Roman foes, though I openly admit I'm no expert on China. Where's Bushbush?

That's a couple different questions - and I addmit I was vauge.

I guess in the first I see no likely population advantage for either Empire - assuming the typical Han vs Rome question (and just maybe I might say the Romans had the overall pop edge).

Now mobilizing manpower out of that is another question...

[Poach]

That may just be down to how I handle these sort of situations, I assume both sides mobilise everything they have against each other, seems to be the fairest way to eliminate as many variables as possible for an opening response.

[Mangalore]

That may just be down to how I handle these sort of situations, I assume both sides mobilise everything they have against each other, seems to be the fairest way to eliminate as many variables as possible for an opening response.

Imperial Rome however did not operate that way with her professional army so this basic assumption would ignore the political and military structure of the Roman empire.

[asianboy]

Wait, so we can still debate this type of topic?
I thought that it has been band. If it hasn't been band then I will definitely try this again, though the interference of the Euro-Centric people (which is not everyone in this forum BTW) makes me want to smash something at times. Aye, this forum is not healthy for me heart at all

[DukeCanada]

Tis healthy for the mind .

The era is the second century CE. Why? because they both seem well off at that point.

Unfortunate that we cant have a poll, thats my bad .

Rome seems to be able to mobilize its army more quickly and was more professional then its Han counterpart. The Heavy Infantry of Rome, when in line on an open field could not be beaten. To fight will large armies the fighting would have to be done in open fields, so I give Rome the advantage there.

China had a higher population density, but whether or not they could tap these pops for man power is questionable.

Cavalry seems the same. Artillary goes to the Romans, same with marching. Romans were known to build forts, bridges, etc on the go.

China has a clear ranged edge, but the Romans shields were very large, and heavily armoured, if properly trained that advantage would be nulled. Lets not forget the testudo either.

[conon394]

China had a higher population density, but whether or not they could tap these pops for man power is questionable.

I assume you mean population - and overall that is simply not particularly valid, or rather given the desperate estimates the safes guess is parity in population and if you follow some of the newer estimated for Rome it had a likely edge.

[Lysimachus]

URGHHHHH

These threads...

[asianboy]

Tis healthy for the mind .

The era is the second century CE. Why? because they both seem well off at that point.

Unfortunate that we cant have a poll, thats my bad .

Rome seems to be able to mobilize its army more quickly and was more professional then its Han counterpart. The Heavy Infantry of Rome, when in line on an open field could not be beaten. To fight will large armies the fighting would have to be done in open fields, so I give Rome the advantage there.

China had a higher population density, but whether or not they could tap these pops for man power is questionable.

Cavalry seems the same. Artillary goes to the Romans, same with marching. Romans were known to build forts, bridges, etc on the go.

China has a clear ranged edge, but the Romans shields were very large, and heavily armoured, if properly trained that advantage would be nulled. Lets not forget the testudo either.

Please, do read the old thread; most of the things that you have labelled have already been thoroughly refuted by me. Sorry if I came out sounding rude for this is not my intention, but all of my writings in the old thread took a lot of time and energy. I would appreciate it if you read it first.

[conon394]

you have labelled have already been thoroughly refuted by me

Pat your own back much my friend

[asianboy]

Pat your own back much my friend

What the....? Listen, after we have talked, you, as an adult, should at least realize by now that you shouldn't attack people who haven't even provoked you yet. Remember, we have already discussed this, where I have admitted my mistake; what surprised me is that, despite being an adult, you seem to not have learned a thing about manners.

Now you might say that I was attacking the OP, and you were just being macho protecting the poor dude. However, if you want to use that argument, then it shows that you have a rather poor observation skills. I did not say that the OP was all wrong; this means that, by default, I have already admitted that he may be right on some points. Secondly, I did apologize to him for sounding a bit rude. I am not being arrogant when I said that I have refuted most of his arguments, because, for those who took the time to read it carefully, I did refute most of the arguments put foward by the OP.

To the OP, please read the old thread. Those writings took a lot of time and energy you know. I will put some of those writings in this thread when I have the time.

[Cornelius Plautus]

The Roman Empire seemed to have the greatest military of the ancient world. They were the first people (of whom I know) to forge a standardized, professional military machine capable of destroying forces several times greater than their own. Legionary heavy infantry, especially during the Pax Romana, was the best of its time, and between the organization of the legion and the discipline instilled in Roman soldiers since birth (Roman values of loyalty, courage, patriotism, etc) meant that they could fight skillfully for far longer than most other soldiers. Their training was impossibly toughening, and unless thrown against completely unfair odds, their courage was indomitable. Roman artillery was also superb, and their siege warfare techniques were unequaled. Any weaknesses in the Roman system, auxiliaries bridged the gaps excellently: mounted skirmishers from Africa, heavy cavalry from the middle-East, and stalwart barbarians from the north complemented the legionary system with lethal efficiency. If the Romans were given a general like Trajan, they would not only succeed but also dominate on the offensive.

Now, I am not familiar with Chinese military history, but I understand that they've had their fair share of brilliant generals, too. I'd imagine that they would be more than a match for the Romans, and ultimately, a long bloody war would result in a stalemate... maybe.

[Rextherock]

Well i have read quite a few books about the Han dynasty and brushing the usuall Chinese propeganda aside the roman army would have made mincemeat out of any Han army. Disicpline, organization, weapon quality even army size spoke in favor of the romans.

[asianboy]

Well i have read quite a few books about the Han dynasty and brushing the usuall Chinese propeganda aside the roman army would have made mincemeat out of any Han army. Disicpline, organization, weapon quality even army size spoke in favor of the romans.

I usually try not to be as bias as possible, but, seeing that Rextherock here likes to slander the Chinese, I want to see how it feels like.

"Well I have read quite a few books about the Roman Empire and brushing the usual Eurocentric propaganda aside the Han Chinese army would have made mincemeat out of any Roman army. Disicpline, organization, weapon quality even army size spoke in favor of the Chinese."

Joking aside, note that I will not try to use inflammatory languages like Rextherock here. I believe that that would be rather unfair to the Romans.

[Ace_General]

The Roman Empire seemed to have the greatest military of the ancient world. They were the first people (of whom I know) to forge a standardized, professional military machine capable of destroying forces several times greater than their own. Legionary heavy infantry, especially during the Pax Romana, was the best of its time, and between the organization of the legion and the discipline instilled in Roman soldiers since birth (Roman values of loyalty, courage, patriotism, etc) meant that they could fight skillfully for far longer than most other soldiers. Their training was impossibly toughening, and unless thrown against completely unfair odds, their courage was indomitable. Roman artillery was also superb, and their siege warfare techniques were unequaled. Any weaknesses in the Roman system, auxiliaries bridged the gaps excellently: mounted skirmishers from Africa, heavy cavalry from the middle-East, and stalwart barbarians from the north complemented the legionary system with lethal efficiency. If the Romans were given a general like Trajan, they would not only succeed but also dominate on the offensive.

Now, I am not familiar with Chinese military history, but I understand that they've had their fair share of brilliant generals, too. I'd imagine that they would be more than a match for the Romans, and ultimately, a long bloody war would result in a stalemate... maybe.

^^^This

The main advantage the roman army had over its enemies is that it was the first fully professional fighting force in the world with experienced and well trained leaders from top to bottom along with its organization. Also, the romans were teh first people in the world to form a staff for their generals

Also, speaking of orgaization, while the legion was formidable in and of itself, it was only a building block of a roman army The romans would be able to recruit specialist auxiliaries so they could have the best archers, cav etc in the meddterrianian world. Also, they could and would regularly recruit local auxilia that would be better adapted to the local conditions. This gave the roman armies enormous flexibility that will be unparalleled in western armies for at least a millennia and a half

The third point I would like to bring up is the romans were experts at playing politics and diplomacy. In a Romo-chinese war I think the Nomadic tribes(precursors to mongols) and romans would jump at the chance to cause trouble to their common foe and also the romans would send envoys to the Koreans and southern Chinese, Tibetans etc etc

So the roman army the han chinese would have would not just be a big block of heavy legionary infantry, but would probably be more varied with auxilies, and perhaps Tibetan and western chinese native tribesmen and various steppe nomads

The romans were great soldiers, but there society and military establishment had a better grasp of the operational and strategic stages of warfare better than arguably anyone in the ancient world

If you want proof of this read the gallic wars and if you think that is biased, study the history of how Caesar and about 80,000 roman legionaries formed a sizeable army and conquered and subduded gaul in 10 years, which when united had an estimated 2 million men capable of being under arms

Heres something on the Dacian wars which showed the efficiency of the roman military machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Dacian_Wars

Heres the Macromanic wars, which was a massive struggle in the late 2nd century where the romans checked the advance of the germanic tribes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomannic_Wars

[Angrychris]

Found this online:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/ess...se33100120.htm

Han dynasty had bigger problems from within while rome had it from outside. I would assume they would field a small army but with very different tactics.

[conon394]

What the....? Listen, after we have talked, you, as an adult, should at least realize by now that you shouldn't attack people who haven't even provoked you yet. Remember, we have already discussed this, where I have admitted my mistake; what surprised me is that, despite being an adult, you seem to not have learned a thing about manners.

Sorry to hurt your feeling but but I still not clear how you can claim to have thoroughly refuted the points raised. The problem is so much of the aggregate data is based minute samples or conjecture or opinion its basically impossible to assert you have refuted anything in this what if in some final manor. Certainly the fact neither society ever actually interacted means we also lack any way to estimate what running into each other while expanding (say chop out the Asia in between) would really mean.

Thus I think in the last iteration of this thread I made a strong argument against your original assertion of some kind of Han agricultural advantage - I don't think you agree. But Importantly given the best population estimates and demonstrable fact that neither empire appears to have say conquered famine or random bad harvests nor exhibited significantly different overall population growth etc that on balance given the amount of Academic uncertainty about any of the points in question I would not claim to have refuted any argument completely - the questions are simply to big.

ex. As I recall you made much of the seed drill but that argument also depends to some extent on how one understands the the BAR - myth or reality.

One could 'thoroughly refute' the assertion that either the Romans did not have crossbows or that the Han did not have stone throwing artillery. You cannot I think claim in general to claim one or the other had a better edge or advantage in either category.