The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

[O'Hea]

Back on topic, I've read around a little more and something I found surprising was that the late Han army had a system of conscription in which common soldiers spent as much time in training as they did in combat- even common infantrymen were given a year of training, which is roughly double what a modern rifleman would go through. A full-time paid army was maintained near the capitol while the conscripts held the borders, and in a crisis they could call up the militias, which were full of men who had previously undergone a year's worth of training as conscripts. Most of the population in the early Han were yeomen farmers, not serfs or slaves. So with all these factors combined we can expect Han armies, even the militias, to be relatively effective and disciplined. They also had a tons of crossbows.

So, I'd previously thought the Han infantry wouldn't be much of a concern for a legion, but now I'm thinking it would be much more dangerous. I think the tide of battle would basically come down to the maneuvering before engagement- if the Romans could pin the Han army down they would probably be able to hack their way through and score a major victory. If the Chinese had the choice of battlefield, we'd probably see the legions bloodied by crossbow fire while their cavalry was broken, left unsupported against a more mobile enemy with greater firepower.

[xjlxking]

Yes, most of Han infantryman had at least one year experience. However, having experience from 20 years ago doesn't help.

Infantry vs Infantry, it's no contest, the Roman wins
As as ranged bows go, the Han had repeating crossbows and other various ones which as far as rate of fire is concerned is superior to the Romans. However, the Romans were fond of hiring mercenaries from Syria, Rhodes, and other various places who had bow. Regardless, Han have an advantage
Cavalry is also easy. Han definitely had more horses and better cavalryman
As far resources go, at the height of both powers, Rome most definitely had more.


Personally, it comes down to siege and where a war would be waged. I can definitely see the Han winning more battles if it's open areas like desert, plain fields..etc. Yet, I'd argue that the Romans would have a more significant advantage the longer the war continues; HOWEVER, what really matters is who is commanding the army. Statistically speaking, I'd say Romans would have a higher chance of winning

[O'Hea]

I've been looking at this as a kind of hypothetical "somebody drops a Han army and a comparable Roman army together somewhere" scenario. You could call it the Deadliest Warrior approach. If we were talking strategically I'd definitely give the Romans the advantage because the Greeks before them had taken and held much of Central Asia, and it was relatively contiguous with sources of supply in Persia and Mesopotamia. The Chinese would have to march across the Himalayas or the open Gobi to get there and by time they could, they'd already be nearly wiped out by desertion and supply shortages. If we had them fighting in India, we'd have similar problems, although that way the Chinese might have the option of supply by sea. Either way the geological barriers between East and Central Asia are pretty formidable.

[Lord Baal]

I would go with the Han simply out of their numbers. It would take a lot of ingenuity for Rome to conquer them

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The secret about the dominance of the early Han is that they had several monopols of diffrent key goods. One of it was the knowledge and the material how to fabricade the best steel weapons and armours in east asia, while the sourunding nations stucked with common low tech iron. Han Cavalery was famours for their strong horses and their catapracts which were in comparison to the Parthians, which used them in a mix of archerplattforms and shocktroops, mainly as shocktroops.

In case of the distance, the attacking empire would clearly loose, but specially the romans would have no way to conquer a united Han. They had a similar conscription system than the Romans and a larger population (together with the many vassals) than the roman empire. The diffrence is far ways from Europe and China today, but it was still very large.

[Lord Baal]

Complementing my past post, the Han also enjoyed better weapons tech. But yeah, it would be something really hard to see either conquering each other. Both where very stretched as they where. Now, what if they would both lasted until transport and communications technologies allowed such war, that's a entirely different matter.

I always envision what would have been if Romans ever reached things like muskets and such.

On topic, there's this: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Sci...Orbis_Romanum)

[August]

Complementing my past post, the Han also enjoyed better weapons tech. But yeah, it would be something really hard to see either conquering each other. Both where very stretched as they where. Now, what if they would both lasted until transport and communications technologies allowed such war, that's a entirely different matter.

I always envision what would have been if Romans ever reached things like muskets and such.

On topic, there's this: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Sci...Orbis_Romanum)

Well... Rome did witness the creation of second generation steam turbine (by Hero of Alexandria). Which was not to be seen again till Industrial Revolution. Hypothetical Industrial Revolution during the reign of the Empire could have been possible.

[Castiel]

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

Well, we Vietnamese beat Mongol invasions 3 times, and they even told others that 1st one doesn't count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_...ons_of_Vietnam
P.s: Sorry for not-on-topic post

[wulfgar610]

Well... Rome did witness the creation of second generation steam turbine (by Hero of Alexandria). Which was not to be seen again till Industrial Revolution. Hypothetical Industrial Revolution during the reign of the Empire could have been possible.

The didn't have metallurgy or the scientific chemistry required. Mainly for the fabrication of iron boilers. The full basis for this developed in the late 14th century for plate armor. When plate went out of fashion in the 17th century the armorers might have turned their skills to producing general goods. This first application of steam engine was in the 1690's to pump water out of mines. This last bit would have been great advantage to the Romans who could then have reinvigorated their declining mines. Ice core evidence from Greenland indicates that the lead and silver mining of Rome was never surpassed by Europe again until the 17th century. Europe didn't catch up again with Roman roads until the mid 18th century, or use concrete again in quantity until the 17th century.
The problem with inventions that look on paper is that a long and expensive process of technical improvement is required before good results are achieved. The first attempt to replace a water wheel driven mill with a steam engine in the late 18th century failed.

Somethings advanced even in the European dark ages even though many things went backward, by the 10th century the Franks could produce better iron at a better cost than the Romans ever did. Thanks to medieval rulers spending vast sums on trying to turn base metal into gold, chemical knowledge advanced greatly in civilized parts of the world.

[wulfgar610]

I wonder how powerful the Han field crossbows where? The crossbow and equivalent weapons were known by the Greek successors but ones powerful enough to regularly penetrate armor were too heavy to use in the field and required supports or rested on city walls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghdians

Battle of Sogdiana

.



In 36 BC
...[a] Han expedition into central Asia, west of the Jaxartes River, apparently encountered and defeated a contingent of Roman legionaries. The Romans may have been the enslaved remnants of Crassus' army, defeated by the Parthians and forced to fight on their eastern frontier. Sogdiana (modern Bukhara), east of the Oxus River, on the Polytimetus River, was apparently the most easterly penetration ever made by Roman forces in Asia. The margin of Chinese victory appears to have been their crossbows, whose bolts and darts seem easily to have penetrated Roman shields and armor.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The secret about the dominance of the early Han is that they had several monopols of diffrent key goods. One of it was the knowledge and the material how to fabricade the best steel weapons and armours in east asia, while the sourunding nations stucked with common low tech iron. Han Cavalery was famours for their strong horses and their catapracts which were in comparison to the Parthians, which used them in a mix of archerplattforms and shocktroops, mainly as shocktroops.

In case of the distance, the attacking empire would clearly loose, but specially the romans would have no way to conquer a united Han. They had a similar conscription system than the Romans and a larger population (together with the many vassals) than the roman empire. The diffrence is far ways from Europe and China today, but it was still very large.

Not correct , actually the population of Roman Empire was larger than the One of Han empire at the time , plus the Han empire was much smaller considering also that a lot of the western lands were uninhabited and mostly desertic .
then there was very few variance and competition among the internal Chines lands wich didn't favoure the rise of differentiated tactics and more advanced forms of warfare , beeing most of the enemies the same .
lastly the repeating crossbows had a limited range and a very low penetration power, it was used in mass mostly to distract enemies befoure a charge and was mostly more an annoyance than a real danger, Arrows were still much more important than the crossbows wich were not like the later medieval ones .
Als the romans did also have hand crossbows , the manuballistas , with very complex mechanisms as well but used them most as artillery fire coverage with much more penetrative power .

anyway the whole comparison of Han vs romans doesn't make much sense actually .

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The didn't have metallurgy or the scientific chemistry required. Mainly for the fabrication of iron boilers. The full basis for this developed in the late 14th century for plate armor. When plate went out of fashion in the 17th century the armorers might have turned their skills to producing general goods. This first application of steam engine was in the 1690's to pump water out of mines. This last bit would have been great advantage to the Romans who could then have reinvigorated their declining mines. Ice core evidence from Greenland indicates that the lead and silver mining of Rome was never surpassed by Europe again until the 17th century. Europe didn't catch up again with Roman roads until the mid 18th century, or use concrete again in quantity until the 17th century.
The problem with inventions that look on paper is that a long and expensive process of technical improvement is required before good results are achieved. The first attempt to replace a water wheel driven mill with a steam engine in the late 18th century failed.

Somethings advanced even in the European dark ages even though many things went backward, by the 10th century the Franks could produce better iron at a better cost than the Romans ever did. Thanks to medieval rulers spending vast sums on trying to turn base metal into gold, chemical knowledge advanced greatly in civilized parts of the world.

Romans did produce advanced steel of this , the best iron ingots for steel ingots were coming from the ancient India actually called Wootz .

[wulfgar610]

Romans did produce advanced steel of this , the best iron ingots for steel ingots were coming from the ancient India actually called Wootz .

The issue at the time was carbonizing the wrought iron via the charcoal bath, the amount of carbonizing wasn't precise. This led to "patten-welding". Numerous strands of carbonized iron where welded together in a labor intensive method. They could be more sure that mass of iron strands were more likely to have the correct amount of carbonization. This formed the core of the sword blade and critical feature was too soft and it would bend, too brittle and it would brake. A far as I know the rest of the sword could be plain iron, except for the cutting edges which had highly carbonized iron welded in. This sort of process was used to make the Gladius, but quality was even more critical in making the longer Spartha. Roman era Spathas cost around 6 solidi, or half a years provincial laboring wages.

Later on in the Frankish era they started sandwiching the wrought iron and charcoal together to get more precise results and patten welding was no longer required. This method was still being used in 16th century Europe.

Wuze steel was the crucible method producing a cementile steel. But an important factor was the quality of the iron ore, the better the quality, the more pure the final result. Wuze steel started from a good quality ore that eventually ran out.

[August]

The didn't have metallurgy or the scientific chemistry required. Mainly for the fabrication of iron boilers. The full basis for this developed in the late 14th century for plate armor. When plate went out of fashion in the 17th century the armorers might have turned their skills to producing general goods. This first application of steam engine was in the 1690's to pump water out of mines. This last bit would have been great advantage to the Romans who could then have reinvigorated their declining mines. Ice core evidence from Greenland indicates that the lead and silver mining of Rome was never surpassed by Europe again until the 17th century. Europe didn't catch up again with Roman roads until the mid 18th century, or use concrete again in quantity until the 17th century.
The problem with inventions that look on paper is that a long and expensive process of technical improvement is required before good results are achieved. The first attempt to replace a water wheel driven mill with a steam engine in the late 18th century failed.

Somethings advanced even in the European dark ages even though many things went backward, by the 10th century the Franks could produce better iron at a better cost than the Romans ever did. Thanks to medieval rulers spending vast sums on trying to turn base metal into gold, chemical knowledge advanced greatly in civilized parts of the world.

Again, purely hypothetically, an immensely wealthy and influential individual of the time, with enough foresight to see the potential of this kind of technology could have, at the very least, pushed this in the right direction. If sufficiently motivated, Rome could have solved the manufacturing issues, it was sufficiently wealthy and long lasting to refine and embrace the turbine/engine concept. Over the span of many years, perhaps, nevertheless potential was there.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Not correct , actually the population of Roman Empire was larger than the One of Han empire at the time , plus the Han empire was much smaller considering also that a lot of the western lands were uninhabited and mostly desertic .
then there was very few variance and competition among the internal Chines lands wich didn't favoure the rise of differentiated tactics and more advanced forms of warfare , beeing most of the enemies the same .
lastly the repeating crossbows had a limited range and a very low penetration power, it was used in mass mostly to distract enemies befoure a charge and was mostly more an annoyance than a real danger, Arrows were still much more important than the crossbows wich were not like the later medieval ones .
Als the romans did also have hand crossbows , the manuballistas , with very complex mechanisms as well but used them most as artillery fire coverage with much more penetrative power .

anyway the whole comparison of Han vs romans doesn't make much sense actually .

The Roman Empire in the late Augustus phase had between 50 and 70 mio inhabitants. Commonly 50 mio, but scientists estimate more as i read, because many lowly people and foreigners are ignored in official census.

In the same time (2 AD) we have census in china and we have the number of 59 mio within the core realm. Other estimations grow up to 71 mio, because of similar reasons i stated for the roman realm.

What is ignored is that Han-China had many vassall kingdomes and colonies outside the empire. Thousends of Han citizens lived in colonies outside the realm to control vasall kingdomes. This is something Rome had not, because, except a few minor kingdomes in the east, they conquered all their vassals.

The Han Empire was centred around chinas largest rivers and the vaste plains in the north. They didn't had large deserts in their realm. The deserts are far more northwest.

[chadwicknight]

Although I am a big fan of roman military machine, I'd say that romans would have been crushed by China.

1 - Chinese artisans produced and worked iron since 7th century b.c.. This had a devastating impact in terms of economic growth and military equipment.

2 - Some in this thread said "better archers for China". I'd say just one word: CROSSBOWS. By 5th century b.c. China had already extremely sophisticated weapons, crossbows above all. 1 dart alone could cut a roman scutum in half.

China. Hands down.

[wulfgar610]

Although I am a big fan of roman military machine, I'd say that romans would have been crushed by China.

1 - Chinese artisans produced and worked iron since 7th century b.c.. This had a devastating impact in terms of economic growth and military equipment.

2 - Some in this thread said "better archers for China". I'd say just one word: CROSSBOWS. By 5th century b.c. China had already extremely sophisticated weapons, crossbows above all. 1 dart alone could cut a roman scutum in half.

China. Hands down.

Early iron was the poor mans bronze. It wasn't until production techniques improved than iron weapons displaced bronze, the Chinese were still using bronze for weapons up until the Han. However the Roman Empire was most likely producing 15x the iron China was. A problem is the tin required for bronze isn't always available in quantity.
Again I don't know how powerful Han hand held crossbows where. The foot bow was the weapon of woodsmen who grew up with it and it took some skill. The crossbow was a weapon that could be used accurately by townsmen with a moderate amount of training. Europe has access to plenty of native foot bowmen until urbanization became more significant.

I wouldn't think hands down, I'd put it more as a close run race. It'd be a question of leadership and how well they utilize what they have.

[Lord Baal]

Two words. Repeating crossbows.

Quality bowmen where rare, really rare. The unique exemption to that rule where the steppes invaders with the Asian(mind you) composite bow and later the English Long Bow men. In roman times? I don't seem to see any important European group to use the bow so proficiently.

However I tremble to think what the romans would have made had they get their hands on repeating crossbows or even gunpowder.

Probably head on they wouldn't have won. However Romans didn't fight that way either. They would have probably lost initial battles until figuring out the Chinese weapons. They would could probably also employed Mongol and Chinese mercenaries to aid them.

[wulfgar610]

As far as know the Han regularly used foot Bowmen, but they weren't weren't as numerous as the crossbowmen. I put it down to conscripts coming from ordinary farmland. Bowmen are best raised from regions where it is a native component. Greek states regularly used foot bowmen as well. The Romans made increasing use of foot bowmen during the Imperial period. The foot bowmen were more commonly used in the late roman period. The Ostrogoth's, Gepid's and Lombard's made massive use of them as the dominant type of infantry. Foot-bowmen were on the back peddle in earlier classical times when shielded heavy infantry was the main arm but where cavalry appeared in greater numbers greater use was made of foot bowmen. Again earlier on, the Persians and Egyptians made massive use of foot bowmen. Foot bowmen were common enough in the Middle-East and Eastern Europe as well as North Africa. But far less common in Western Europe.
The hand held repeating crossbow appeared in China in the 2nd century AD, but didn't feature a heavy bolt. The intention seems to have been to create a rapid rain of light fire.

[O'Hea]

Yeah, the repeating crossbow was a good bit less powerful than the standard crossbows for the sake of rapid fire. It was more for hosing the enemy down with bolts to tire, demoralize and pin them rather than scoring kills. Rapid light fire worked on the Romans at Carrhae, but with foot crossbowmen there's no guarantee it would work so well.