Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 169

Thread: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

  1. #21
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by xjlxking View Post
    ... Mongols also destroyed China. In fact, they destroyed it without much seige.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China
    The Mongol invasion of China spanned six decades in the 13th century and involved the defeat of the Jin Dynasty, Western Xia, the Dali Kingdom and the Southern Song, which finally fell in 1279.
    Right, sixty years of fighting in one of the world's most urbanized regions "without much siege."

  2. #22
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    The Yuan Dynasty Mongols under Khublai Khan conquered the Han Chinese Southern Song Dynasty largely because they decided to fight on their terms. That is, they built a Chinese-style navy to seize the rivers and lakes that dominate the landscape of the southern half of China. That and counterweight trebuchets were really useful as opposed to the traction trebuchet used beforehand by the Chinese. Gunpowder weaponry was still in its infancy, so was not a deciding factor in the Mongol conquest once they adopted the technology from the conquered Jin Dynasty of northern China. At that point the cutting edge technologies were small bronze handguns, rocket arrows, and cast-iron bombs lobbed from catapults.

    I don't see Rome and Han having much of an advantage over one or the other so long as we are talking about the late Roman Republic or early-to-mid Principate. The Han certainly had the advantage when it came to having mounted crossbowmen, which if I recall was unseen in the West until the 13th century. However, I don't see the Han soldiers' tough lacquered armor being much of an advantage over the standard chain mail worn by the Roman legionaries (or the lorica segmentata for that matter). Yet one must factor in more than just equipment or tactics, such as troop numbers, logistics, the skill of commanders, etc. It's just too many variables to consider. On tiny individual issues, though, you could say one side was better prepared than the other.

    For that matter, there are too many threads about this topic, both here at TWC and online in general. Surely there are better topics about the Han Empire to discuss than the tired old comparison between it and Rome?

  3. #23
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Especially just one on the military aspects of both, if someone were to look in the VV or Alternate parts of the forum then there must be one or two complete threads where we pretty much discussed all the aspects of this military showdown.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  4. #24

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China

    Right, sixty years of fighting in one of the world's most urbanized regions "without much siege."
    How many siege battles were there, please!

    Regardless, your attempt to try and make it sound as Asia was kicking butt of the western world is laughable.. But please go on about how Mongols needed to siege. I'm sure your forgetting the fact what the results were...

    ON topic though...

    http://historum.com/games/44519-roma...han-china.html

    Yes, 72 pages of insanely good discussion
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar


  5. #25
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    I don't know how many sieges there were. Although all the major cities of the Jin had to be besieged and many of the large walled cities of the Song and Xia were besieged before they surrendered. Kublai Khan himself attacked Yunnan when his brother Mongke was Khan and had the large city over there surrender.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  6. #26

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by money View Post
    I don't know how many sieges there were. Although all the major cities of the Jin had to be besieged and many of the large walled cities of the Song and Xia were besieged before they surrendered. Kublai Khan himself attacked Yunnan when his brother Mongke was Khan and had the large city over there surrender.
    It was a rhetorical question. The mongols destroyed every opponent they needed to. The amount of sieges isn't neccessary to established that even if China had 50 more walled cities, the results would be similar. The only ones who fought and beaten them that I remember were the Mumluks
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar


  7. #27
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by xjlxking View Post
    How many siege battles were there, please!

    Regardless, your attempt to try and make it sound as Asia was kicking butt of the western world is laughable.. But please go on about how Mongols needed to siege. I'm sure your forgetting the fact what the results were...
    Dude, I seriously have no clue what you're talking about right now. I just said that it's ridiculous to think that you can spend 60 years conquering large cities without fighting any sieges. That's got nothing to do with west or east.

  8. #28
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    I'm sort of confused now, cause in post number 20 you said that the Mongols destroyed China without much siege. I'm saying that it was mostly all sieges and lots of them... so...

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  9. #29
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Yeah, I mean... ok, the Mongols beat China. They beat lots of people across Eurasia. They conquered Russia, defeated the combined armies of Poland and the Teutonic Order, and rampaged through Iran and the Middle East. I don't get how the fact that they beat China proves anything- during this period they beat nearly everybody.

  10. #30

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    Yeah, I mean... ok, the Mongols beat China. They beat lots of people across Eurasia. They conquered Russia, defeated the combined armies of Poland and the Teutonic Order, and rampaged through Iran and the Middle East. I don't get how the fact that they beat China proves anything- during this period they beat nearly everybody.
    That's exactly my point. They beat everyone, no matter what. So I want replying to the post about someone saying how Asian empires defeated westerns plenty of time, then referenced Mongols. Forget the fact that Mongols destroyed everything, right
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar


  11. #31
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by xjlxking View Post
    That's exactly my point. They beat everyone, no matter what. So I want replying to the post about someone saying how Asian empires defeated westerns plenty of time, then referenced Mongols. Forget the fact that Mongols destroyed everything, right
    The guy who brought them up was responding to a post that basically said all westerners are better in warfare than all Asians because, and I quote, "Asians are weird." You're making it sound like we're all trying to hype Asia up when we're just responding to a pretty ignorant pro-Western post.

  12. #32

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by BritPatriot1815 View Post
    This is a purely hypothetical situation based on a possible real-life event.

    The Roman Expansion East was hampered by the Parthian Empire, notably at Carrhae, and the Chinese Expansion West was too hindered by the Kushan Empire and these two Empires kept these two superpowers from directly colliding with each other.
    I don't know if either of them could've navigate their mass armies across the desert barriers in the silk road which was territory only nomads could cope with. Both the Han and the Roman armies were heavy on supply requirements.
    My bet would be with the Han in open battles because of their superior cavalry. Although the Legions would be better in sieges and taking and holding fortifications. The Romans ultimately couldn't defeat the Persians,. so I don't see how they'd do any better against the Han.
    Proculus: Divine Caesar, PLEASE! What have I done? Why am I here?
    Caligula: Treason!
    Proculus: Treason? I have always been loyal to you!
    Caligula: [laughs insanely] That IS your treason! You're an honest man, Proculus, which means a bad Roman! Therefore, you are a traitor! Logical, hmm? Ha, ha, ha!

  13. #33

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Mongols would beat Romans and Chinese. Don't care which dynasty I have historical evidence nope don't care what you say it's true.


    ​Scoodlypooper Numero Uno

  14. #34

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    even the mongols were defeated in the end by the european armies.Altough they were the best what Asia had to offer in terms of soldiers.So yeah,from this pov,the romans would beat the chinese in the end,because of the more "adaptable" way of the europeans in comprasion to a more rigid asian army.

    European power,yey !

  15. #35

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreius Pretorianus View Post
    even the mongols were defeated in the end by the european armies.Altough they were the best what Asia had to offer in terms of soldiers.So yeah,from this pov,the romans would beat the chinese in the end,because of the more "adaptable" way of the europeans in comprasion to a more rigid asian army.

    European power,yey !
    It's not like the Mongols weren't driven out of China 200 years before they were driven out in Europe or anything.
    Also it's not like the Mongols weren't outnumbered in pretty much every single battle ever against the Europeans or anything.
    There's also this guy called Atilla. I hear he's like the Genghis Khan prototype.
    Last edited by ptoss1; August 03, 2013 at 04:05 PM.


    ​Scoodlypooper Numero Uno

  16. #36
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreius Pretorianus View Post
    even the mongols were defeated in the end by the european armies.
    Care to explain your theory ?

    The reason why Mongols did not invade all of Europe is that men do not live 200 years.

  17. #37
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreius Pretorianus View Post
    even the mongols were defeated in the end by the european armies.Altough they were the best what Asia had to offer in terms of soldiers.So yeah,from this pov,the romans would beat the chinese in the end,because of the more "adaptable" way of the europeans in comprasion to a more rigid asian army.

    European power,yey !
    You throw around the term "Asian" like it means something, as if each army found in the vast continent of Asia 800 years ago was identical.

    From what I recall, the Poles and Hungarians were trounced in the field several times by the Mongols (who even sacked Krakow), until the latter had to retreat back to the steppes following the death of their khan and the ensuing election that had to be held. But yes, the Russians eventually defeated and expelled the Mongols after more than a century of having to pay them continuous tribute.

    I would actually strongly compare the Chinese to the Russians than make some forced attempt to lump the Chinese together with the Mongols because they are both "Asians". The Han Chinese after all were a settled people, a hefty percentage of them urbanites in big cities, who rose up against the Mongols to reestablish native rule (i.e. the Ming Dynasty). The Chinese armies, despite having a tradition of mounted archery borrowed from their northern nomadic enemies, fought battles in a dramatically different manner than the classic Mongols. Therefore, I would put the Chinese and Russians into one camp, and the Mongols into another in terms of the characteristics of their armies and civilizations.

    As for Attila the Hun, who may or may not have been a descendant of the Xiongnu who previously fought the Chinese Han Dynasty, even his seemingly unstoppable mass of distance-murdering horse archers were outwitted by the Roman general Flavius Aetius at Chalons. I think it really all boils down to the tactics that suit the moment to achieve victory. Take the earlier Crassus, his legions, and Gaulish auxiliaries who were shot to pieces like fish in a barrel by the Parthians at Carrhae. Clearly he didn't understand the advantage horse archers had on a wide open plain. That mistake was NOT repeated by Publius Ventidius Bassus, who lured his Parthian foes up a hill at the Battle of Mount Gindarus and defeated the once seemingly invincible horse archers in close combat.

    CONCLUSION: Horse archer armies, like those of the Mongols, were only unstoppable when they're in the right place at the right time with a competent commander. Obviously the Parthian prince Pacorus was no Genghis Khan. You could turn that argument right around and say that heavy infantry based armies, like that of the Romans or medieval Europeans (who possessed the shock bonus of heavily armored mounted knights), didn't have the advantage in every scenario.

    Hence, it would be wise to avoid all statements of absolute certainty as to who fielded the best army. The premise to that is ludicrous, unless of course one of the opposing armies is ridiculously technologically outmatched like the Aztecs versus the Spanish.

  18. #38

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Attila was not the conqueror he was made to be. He was enlarged as a figure all for propaganda use for the Pope. After all, the Pope claimed he driven out the "mighty" Attila from attacking Rome. Attila was exploiting a broken Empire who by 400ad didnt even have a standing army. He gets credit for something he did not do. He did contribute by having the barbarics migrate in millions and forcing entry into the Empire. The same Empire that didn't have an army...

    The huns were effective army but unlike china, much of Europe is unsuited for cavalry to be as effective as in asia minor, or middle east
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar


  19. #39
    Daily's Avatar Flingin' ma mace son
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Snowy tops of Norway
    Posts
    3,131

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    This thread is about The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty in China. No more off topic or disruptive posting.
    Proud patron of Confederate Jeb and FalconPilot
    View how Grouchy makes a Hoplon shield!

  20. #40
    August's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Waiting for you on the horizon...
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    I seriously doubt either one would be willing to be warring with the other - it would be logistically impossible, and cultures were too different for any sort of hope for long term control.
    Mongols were the only ones who did something approaching Eurasia-wide campaigns, but only due to how self sufficient and mobile their armies were.

Posting Permissions

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