Roman empire vs Han dynasty

[LittleD]

If these 2 armies ever met in lets say (Central Asia/Afghanistan) because that is about where the in between of the two civilizations was located, who do you think would win?

A Roman Legion(About 4000 men)
vs
A Han Dynasty army(4000 men)
Who do you think would win in such locations and why?

Take in account
-tactics
-environment
-Leadership
-soldier skill
-type of armor and weapons

[asianboy]

I do not like to say who would win since we can never totally know. However, I would say that the one with the most advantages are Han Dynasty China, and I'm not saying this because I am Asian.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...y-comparisons/
The link that I have provided may be some Chinese forum, but the thread contains the most exhaustive researches that I have ever known about this subject.

[Drakedeath]

I can't make an honest opinion on the matter without a more exact lineup. 4000 vs 4000 isn't an accurate description of strength. There's too many variables. How many are cavalry, archers, and skirmishers? What type of each are they using, homemade, mercenary, or allied?

That said, the battle would likely have been inconclusive, and an entire war would depend on who was able to adapt to counter their enemy the best.

[dacder]

That said, the battle would likely have been inconclusive, and an entire war would depend on who was able to adapt to counter their enemy the best.

That means the romans would win.

[Genius of the Restoration]

There's a similar thread here and I've seen more in VV. I don't tend to dwell on alternate history but I'd say the Han

[shikaka]

This is very easy!

The HAN dynasty, and single handedly!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Han Solo's kids, and also his wife Leia are Jedi!

A Roman Legion(About 4000 men)
vs
A Han Dynasty army(4000 men)
Who do you think would win in such locations and why?

Take in account
-tactics
-environment
-Leadership
-soldier skill
-type of armor and weapons

[Plant]

If these 2 armies ever met in lets say (Central Asia/Afghanistan) because that is about where the in between of the two civilizations was located, who do you think would win?

And presumably ignored the several empires at and along the way.

A Roman Legion(About 4000 men)
vs
A Han Dynasty army(4000 men)
Who do you think would win in such locations and why?

Yeah, just place are random arbitary number. Why not any other number? Why not just say if of equal sized army. Why ignor every other factor that's taken to raise an army an just assume they will be equally sized?

What location? Central Asia and Afghanistan combined is an area greater than Europe, with all the geographical differences that entails. Hell, just Afghanistan are mountains combined with flatland.

Take in account
-tactics
-environment
-Leadership
-soldier skill
-type of armor and weapons

Kind of difficult since you are comparing time periods of empires which have both existed over 400 years. Plus for some reason the knowledge of ancient China doesn't compare with what we know about Romans. I remember reading an Osprey book about the time period, and the author was apologising for lack of knowledge because apparently, the terracotta tomb was only recently opened to scholars, and apparently successive governments loved to burn and remove all traces of previous governments. So instead he filled the book with pictures.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

This topic has already been discussed in the vestigia vetustatis forum.

[Bow-wow-wow]

4000 vs. 4000 the Roman would completely annihalte the Han but the Han had an army of around 1,000,000 men and there were aroung 100,000 in the enitre Roman empire at its peak so man for man Romans are better but the Han clearly have the numerical advantage by far.

[Armatus]

I actually like this particular speculation, it's moire reasonable than the Greek vs Samurai or the early Imperial legions vs the Mongols.

But dates must be laid down for proper speculation.


Imperial Han 206 BCE – 220 CE?

Late Roman Republic (107-30BC)?
Early Roman Empire (30 BC-284 AD)?

What are your ranges?

[Posantio of Umbria]

If these 2 armies ever met in lets say (Central Asia/Afghanistan) because that is about where the in between of the two civilizations was located, who do you think would win?

A Roman Legion(About 4000 men)
vs
A Han Dynasty army(4000 men)
Who do you think would win in such locations and why?

Take in account
-tactics
-environment
-Leadership
-soldier skill
-type of armor and weapons

The question you pose here is actually: "who will win: 4000 professional soldiers (the Romans) or 4000 peasant conscripts (the Han)?" the answer to that is easy.

Also, the numbers of a 1st century roman legion are closer to 5500, while a Han army division is around 5000 men, of which only a fraction would be professional soldiers.

Instead, if we consider combined-arms forces of equal size (chinese foot and horse agains a Roman legion an attached auxiliary cohorts and alae, say, 10,000 vs 10,000)...

The Han Cavalry was the professional force, mostly horse archers. In an open plain, they would be as effective against the Romans as the Parthians. In rugged terrain just as unsuccesfull.

Chinese infantry mostly used pole-arms. The Romans had developed effective tactics against the Macedonian Phalanx and would quickly know what to do against (conscripted) Chinese Halberdiers and pikemen: get past the effective points of the pole-arm, batter them with the scutum and stick a gladius into their throats!

The Chinese had Crossbows, which outranged roman pila, and packed quite a punch. I'm not sure if Roman shields and armour could stand up to it's impact, but I guess the scutum would provide good protection against crossbow bolts.

The romans had chainmail and the lorica segmentata and the scutum, the Han chinese lamellar armour of bronze and/or leather and various kinds of shields. They could be wicker, or leather/wood not on par with the scutum. Some chinese probably had bronze shields, which might have been better than the scutum.
Most Han pole-armed infantry had no shield at all and body armour wasn't standard either and it's quality doubtfull. Only the elite and officers would have access to good fitting, well-made armour.
Roman armour was superior, though covered less of the body, probably because the scutum offered protection to the other parts. Bronze/Iron Helmets were standard-issue for legionaries, for the Han: not so! leather caps predominated for the conscripts, Bronze Helmets were available to elites and officers.

Both civilizations knew the art of field fortifications. However, (heavy field/siege) artillery was well available to ancient Europe, while ancient China did not use such weapons untill the 3d century (3 kingdoms era). Should a Han commander withdraw to a fortified camp, the Romans would bombard the camp with ballistae and onagers and probably still slaughter the Chinese... especially since the besieged Chinese would not be able to exploit their cavalry advantage.

And last, while the Chinese had a library of "art of war" books, the Romans had learned similar ideas about strategy and tactics in practice. The tactics and strategy involved would greatly depend on the commanders involved, and how much they knew about warfare. Most "Bing Fa" described ideals... I'm not sure how much of these were put into practice regulary.

The smart Han commander would attempt to exploit his advantage in cavalry and avoid pitched battles, aiming at Roman supply lines, while the Romans would press for pitched battle and besiege important settlements to draw the Han into open combat.

In a straight-up fight to the death, all things equal... Canae or Zama. The Romans had superior infantry and could boast on professional cavalry forces from their auxiliaries to match Han Horse to a certain extent... Chinese infantry is doomed against a legion and supporting auxiliary archers/slingers, the Han cavalry stands a chance, but when pinned down in combat...

[Armatus]

And last, while the Chinese had a library of "art of war" books, the Romans had learned similar ideas about strategy and tactics in practice. The tactics and strategy involved would greatly depend on the commanders involved, and how much they knew about warfare. Most "Bing Fa" described ideals... I'm not sure how much of these were put into practice regulary.

Come now... you don't think they just dreamed up these ideals having a history that stretches back some 5000 years with a martial history of at least as long do you?

We are assuming this is going to be the best most professional Roman legion, but not the best of the Han?

I think that match up should be redefined into what would make most sense for an actual battle to take place. I also wouldn't downplay the Chinese conscripts without taking a closer look. Remember Spartacus?

So lets name a date, and name a scenario and then decide what to bring.

[Anakarsis]

Disagree with many statements of Posantio

First of all, Chinese knowledge on tactics and strategy was NOT theorical. Just before Han, they had an age of 300 years of continuos war between five states each one of wich was about half the size of the whole Roman empire (some 30 millons) in people, that get used to a style of warfare were huge movements of troops were pretty common, with 100.000-200.000 strong armies being common and armies of 400.000 were known. Chinese commanders and officers know how and were pretty able to manage battles on this scale as normal issue. Even after unification, that happened lets say 150-200 years before the supposed battle, peasant major uprising were fought in those scales. These engagements could not be seen as just civil wars among civilians as they fought with formal tactics and drilled and organized troops.

Second: i´m not sure of what you are referring to as "peasant conscrip", but chinese army in NO WAY could be compared with Achaemenid or other Asian forced levies; "conscripts" were given formal training and drilling and were included into a regular organization (as officers were all professional soldiers), plus conscripts usually dont went to the battlefield before receiving at least 6 months of instruction (except in the most dire circumstances, under which also Romans could send not-so-professional troops). Also, Chinese peasantry was culturally used to conscription, not only for the many centuries of war before unification but because in China is culturally accepted that the peasants carry weapons and defend themselves from bandits and petty lords, as ask the state for help is considered a bit dishonorable, and peasant often overthrow rulers with military revolts. Han himself was a peasant that take power of former emperor, and if you check battles the Peasant armies has no brutal disproportionated casualties before the imperial troops to win, because in fact all of them were drilled and trained conscripts that revolt before being assigned to service. Because of the origin of the Emperor, under his rule the idea that the peasants were the strength of the empire grown stronger. Anyways, you should take into account that the Chinese consider themselves "soldiers" and not "warriors". The level of training and drilling could be more or less compared with USA troops in WW2 much more than with Middle Eastern or Medieval peasant levies.

Third: while is true that only chinese cavalry was all-professional, i dont think that infantry were all compossed by conscript troops. Professional troops did exist on all levels, and they did not restricted to officers and commanders in infantry: there is often mention to "elite" infantry regigments. For starters, as conscripts take (as i said before) 6 months to take the battlefield before conscripted, the Imperial Army has to have something to quick respond to threats. In a army of 1.000.000 as Han probably numbered, its not crazy to assume a force of at least 50.000 professional infantry. More than enough to field, lets say, three divisisions against similiary numbered 2 roman legions.

Fourth: While Chinese crossbow of Han period was not as powerful as European MEdieval crossbow, it was at least as strong as the best composite bows, those that massacred romans at Carrae. But main advantage of crossbow is not individual strength, but readiness of direct fire and possibility to concentrated fire much better than archer ranks. Crossbow are hard to reload, but direct shots came as ready as handguns and there is always a seconde line waiting to fire while the first one reload. Also, Chinese employ heavy crossbow that has to be tensed with the legs, of about 400lbs strength IIRC, whose barrage fire could be perfectly compared with Roman artillery (whose effectivity, to my tastes, is exaggerated; i think that the RTW engine represents their capacity pretty well, they were not more effective than that). In fact, thight formations became totally obsolete in Chine after the introduction of Crossbow barrage.

Fifth: Chinese "Halberdier" or Ge is a nasty weapon that has very few in common with phalanx pike. It ranks are not as solid as the phalanx, but it is a much more versatile and handling weapon; european equivalent would be the lighter halberdier types or, much more exactly, the glaive. You can discuss the efectivity of this weapon (to me, is a lovely weapon to handle, i practiced with it a bit, and the combination of range, quickness and punch is great, but you can allege that is not so easy to master), but i´m possitive in that romans never faced such type of infantry. More close would be Dacian falxmen. Also, both Halderdier and Crossbow Chinese soldiers used swords aside from their main weapon.

Sixth. Chinese absolutely dont fight on thight formations as Greek or other phalanginst do. After widespread of crossbow, that could do horrible slaughters on thight formations even with shields, Chinese favored a more agile moving across the field, althrought they were capable of form a line if needed. In few worlds, Chinese movility throught the field would be as versatile as Roman Legions, if not better.

What you said about armour is correct. Lamellar and full-cover leather armour and helmet were the more common, but there is not "at best" here: armour and weapons were supplied by the state and manufactured at great factories much larger than Roman ones, so most soldiers were as standarized equipped as Roman soldiers, at least at the start of the campaigns (just like Romans that also could get "less" standarized through campaign). Anyways, take into account that iron versions of lamellar (used by cavalry and elite infantry mentioned early), pretty similar to steppe scale armour, is a very, very effective armour (i´ve also used some at reenacting), without doubt superior to Roman chain mail (but probably inferior than segmenta). Also, chinese were not so prone of shields, that were never widely used and virtually fell out of use after the adoption of crossbow.

[Posantio of Umbria]

Disagree with many statements of Posantio

First of all, Chinese knowledge on tactics and strategy was NOT theorical. Just before Han, they had an age of 300 years of continuos war between five states each one of wich was about half the size of the whole Roman empire (some 30 millons) in people, that get used to a style of warfare were huge movements of troops were pretty common, with 100.000-200.000 strong armies being common and armies of 400.000 were known. Chinese commanders and officers know how and were pretty able to manage battles on this scale as normal issue. Even after unification, that happened lets say 150-200 years before the supposed battle, peasant major uprising were fought in those scales. These engagements could not be seen as just civil wars among civilians as they fought with formal tactics and drilled and organized troops.

Second: i´m not sure of what you are referring to as "peasant conscrip", but chinese army in NO WAY could be compared with Achaemenid or other Asian forced levies; "conscripts" were given formal training and drilling and were included into a regular organization (as officers were all professional soldiers), plus conscripts usually dont went to the battlefield before receiving at least 6 months of instruction (except in the most dire circumstances, under which also Romans could send not-so-professional troops). Also, Chinese peasantry was culturally used to conscription, not only for the many centuries of war before unification but because in China is culturally accepted that the peasants carry weapons and defend themselves from bandits and petty lords, as ask the state for help is considered a bit dishonorable, and peasant often overthrow rulers with military revolts. Han himself was a peasant that take power of former emperor, and if you check battles the Peasant armies has no brutal disproportionated casualties before the imperial troops to win, because in fact all of them were drilled and trained conscripts that revolt before being assigned to service. Because of the origin of the Emperor, under his rule the idea that the peasants were the strength of the empire grown stronger. Anyways, you should take into account that the Chinese consider themselves "soldiers" and not "warriors". The level of training and drilling could be more or less compared with USA troops in WW2 much more than with Middle Eastern or Medieval peasant levies.

Third: while is true that only chinese cavalry was all-professional, i dont think that infantry were all compossed by conscript troops. Professional troops did exist on all levels, and they did not restricted to officers and commanders in infantry: there is often mention to "elite" infantry regigments. For starters, as conscripts take (as i said before) 6 months to take the battlefield before conscripted, the Imperial Army has to have something to quick respond to threats. In a army of 1.000.000 as Han probably numbered, its not crazy to assume a force of at least 50.000 professional infantry. More than enough to field, lets say, three divisisions against similiary numbered 2 roman legions.

Fourth: While Chinese crossbow of Han period was not as powerful as European MEdieval crossbow, it was at least as strong as the best composite bows, those that massacred romans at Carrae. But main advantage of crossbow is not individual strength, but readiness of direct fire and possibility to concentrated fire much better than archer ranks. Crossbow are hard to reload, but direct shots came as ready as handguns and there is always a seconde line waiting to fire while the first one reload. Also, Chinese employ heavy crossbow that has to be tensed with the legs, of about 400lbs strength IIRC, whose barrage fire could be perfectly compared with Roman artillery (whose effectivity, to my tastes, is exaggerated; i think that the RTW engine represents their capacity pretty well, they were not more effective than that). In fact, thight formations became totally obsolete in Chine after the introduction of Crossbow barrage.

Fifth: Chinese "Halberdier" or Ge is a nasty weapon that has very few in common with phalanx pike. It ranks are not as solid as the phalanx, but it is a much more versatile and handling weapon; european equivalent would be the lighter halberdier types or, much more exactly, the glaive. You can discuss the efectivity of this weapon (to me, is a lovely weapon to handle, i practiced with it a bit, and the combination of range, quickness and punch is great, but you can allege that is not so easy to master), but i´m possitive in that romans never faced such type of infantry. More close would be Dacian falxmen. Also, both Halderdier and Crossbow Chinese soldiers used swords aside from their main weapon.

Sixth. Chinese absolutely dont fight on thight formations as Greek or other phalanginst do. After widespread of crossbow, that could do horrible slaughters on thight formations even with shields, Chinese favored a more agile moving across the field, althrought they were capable of form a line if needed. In few worlds, Chinese movility throught the field would be as versatile as Roman Legions, if not better.

What you said about armour is correct. Lamellar and full-cover leather armour and helmet were the more common, but there is not "at best" here: armour and weapons were supplied by the state and manufactured at great factories much larger than Roman ones, so most soldiers were as standarized equipped as Roman soldiers, at least at the start of the campaigns (just like Romans that also could get "less" standarized through campaign). Anyways, take into account that iron versions of lamellar (used by cavalry and elite infantry mentioned early), pretty similar to steppe scale armour, is a very, very effective armour (i´ve also used some at reenacting), without doubt superior to Roman chain mail (but probably inferior than segmenta). Also, chinese were not so prone of shields, that were never widely used and virtually fell out of use after the adoption of crossbow.

I stand corrected and agree with most of what you say, I made a rather long post in reply, but forgot to tick the "remember me" box, so it is sadly lost.

But now there is a discussion!

I made a lot of assumptions and actually posted my previous post while I actually had not a lot of time available to do so, and did not quite use all my knowledge of the respective military histories... just a few basics and the first things that came to mind. I find your statements very instructive, but windows is harrassing me about a required restart at the moment and this laptop of mine will take ages to do so.

I'll attempt to reproduce the main thing of my revisited ideas about this.

A battle between a roman army and a Han force, both led by the best possible commanders will probably be decided at the strategic level. I can't say either art of war, roman or chinese is superior, I've studied both and can't say they're all that different in basics. Mind you, despite my previous post, my knowledge of ancient Chinese and Roman strategic thought is far above average for a dutch college drop-out. I've read translations Ceasar, Sun Tzu, Sima Rangju's method of warfare, polybius' histories, a song dynasty compilation on strategy, lord shang, livy and plan on reading josephus soon.

Considering their mutual strategic theory, the Romans would in most cases withdraw and seek a diplomatic solution. The Chinese have the advantage of technology and manpower. If the Romans do decide to go to war, they must beat the chinese at strategy, logistics and morale. This all comes down to the commander's skill and energy... and if he faces an opponent who is by all means his equal, he'd better sit down at the negotations table to work out a not all to humiliating agreement.

[Darth_Revan]

huangdi and jupiter(zeus) will battle it out in the skys and that will decide the victor.

[Armatus]

Actually there have been a few threads of similar nature and I can't recall which at the moment, but one mentions the Chinese Emperor who sends his emissaries with an army to find a great land 'Suno'? top of my head and conquer this land for the Emperor. Which emperor and what was the name of the land attributed to the west, Rome or Parthia?

[Darth_Revan]

Actually there have been a few threads of similar nature and I can't recall which at the moment, but one mentions the Chinese Emperor who sends his emissaries with an army to find a great land 'Suno'? top of my head and conquer this land for the Emperor. Which emperor and what was the name of the land attributed to the west, Rome or Parthia?

I heard of that as well, I heard that they made it as far as parthia but the parthians wouldn't let them through and turned them back(duno if its true but thats what I heard)

[Armatus]

That's probably related to another story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_...rassus.27_army

[ptoss1]

Let's revive this topic just for the sake of it.

[wulfgar610]

The question you pose here is actually: "who will win: 4000 professional soldiers (the Romans) or 4000 peasant conscripts (the Han)?" the answer to that is easy.

.

Well technically form Marius onwards, the legions were "peasant" conscripts. The various Roman and Roman controlled communities had to deliver quotas of young men for the legions and auxiliaries. But conscripts can make good soldiers if treated well and after a few years of experience. For that matter Late Roman society was becoming more like feudal China every day.
Chinese infantry were spearmen defending the crossbowmen designed to defeat cavalry and light infantry and would only stand so long against legionaries. However the Chinese had access to good cavalry which could win the day if the infantry held the line for long enough.

Conscript armies have a much higher average IQ than volunteer armies, something lamented by the modern western military.