Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 169

Thread: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

  1. #81

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    The Chinese crossbow would be tough weapon Rome would face. China specialized in mass crossbow fire that decimated the Xiongnu horse archers. Some records say that the crossbow can pierce very thick boards. The Scutum definetely with its thin composite design could be pierced as proven many times. Although I'm not sure how it would fair against the Lorica Segmentata, as in modern test could withstand any arrow fire of the Ancient period. Having said that if you wana compare the late Romans after 300 AD, most wore scale or chainmail.
    It really wouldn't be that tough. The Han crossbows were simply bows placed on a stock.

    http://www.hxlsw.com/UpLoadFiles/Pics/57784601.jpg

    The Han xbow's purpose was to be a simple missile weapon that any peasant could use with minimal training. It's a far cry from something like this:

    http://cf067b.medialib.glogster.com/...7/crossbow.jpg

    ...that had some actual piercing power from the technology of its time. Han xbows didn't need to pierce heavy armor so its use against Legionnaires would be of limited value. A line of Roman slingers against Han xbowmen would take heavier initial casualties but then persevere due to higher rate of fire. That is assuming the Legionnaires don't provide cover even.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Rome did use crossbows too but it isn't as well recorded. The hand ballista had been recorded to be used around the principate and probally the late empire but we don't know how much did they field. Rome's use of crossbows mainly came in the form of artillery like the Scorpion or Ballista. Rome's use of artillery in field battles is unrecorded not well either since most well recorded battles like Cannae, Cahrae, Phaspahlus they didn't use artillery and were in the Republican period and were only used for sieges. The imperial period definetey saw more use of artillery in field battles like the "carrige ballista" and I believe Marcus Aurelius used them during his campaigns against the Alan horsemen. Most of Rome's missle troops would have recorded to be Syrian archers or Baelieric slingers I believe.
    Truth of the matter is both sides' "xbows" would be inefficient against the other. The Han xbows designed to deal with mostly unarmored tribal cavalry of the north would do little to a Legionnaire and the Roman's manuballistae would not be optimal against lighter armored Han infantry. Bows and slingers would be more capable.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Although I believe Chinese numbers are heavily overexaggerated(like fielding 200,000 infantry and 100,000 cavalry or fielding 700,000 total men in a single field battle) I do believe Chinses cavaly force would be substantially larger than the Roman Alae or Corhortes cavalry.

    The Roman army at its max would be about 300,000 to 400,000(legion and Auxilia)(under Hadrian-Severus) while the Han army could be 100,000 proffestional force plus 1 million to 700,000 militia. (1 million I believe is a overexageration. The Roman army could also field allied mercenaries known as Federotii from the Barbarian allies(for example during the Illyrian revolt, Rome had a couple Legion and Auxilia in the area but were able to get a force of 100,000 total strong due to their barbarian allies)

    I don't think total force matters all that much. It is logistics and money that could field armies(for example Rome could field 80,000 men at Cannae but much fewer oversees in Greece.) Chinses armies definetley have better logistics with wider roads and better logistical trains due to their wider use of cavalry and horses. Roman armies in the East definetley get slowed down a lot.
    Yeah the Han cavalry would number more but I would say, so what? As for Han army fielding 100,000 professional troops, this simply isn't true. They had a small core standing cavalry army (External/Northern army) which was augmented by limited term servicemen that would serve a couple of years. This is a far cry from the Mariam military system of professional standing troops. As far as logistical capabilities went, Rome had to manage a front on all sides. Han had to deal mostly with the north and a bit of the west. Han history also makes note of numerous times when the northern army got cut off from its resources fighting the tribal armies. Nothing really suggests superior logistics on the part of the Han, if anything quite the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Indeed its very hard to compare since both armies would have never been able to meet each other or fight an all out war.
    Oh sure you can compare. The Roman military was designed to fight entities like Carthage, Egypt, Macedon, Persia, while the Han army was designed to counter act northern tribe harassment.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Depends on the terrain. In mass wide spaces like a field or desert, the Chinese logictics well suit better. Roman armies have a tendancy to get cut off like in Mark Antonty's campaign in Parthia.
    The Han armies got cut off just as much if not more in the northern front as well. There's nothing better about Han logistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    A huge mass rank of crossbowmen vs a couple of Syrians?(unless you want to consider a Legionaire a missle troop)
    The Han would field more missile troops but their effectiveness against the Legion would be limited since the Han xbow was not made to pierce such heavy armor but to ward off light/unarmored tribal cavalry.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    In terms of quality I think the Chinese cavalry wouldn't have been much better than the Roman cavalry. However Chinese cavalry commanders would definetely been more knowledgeble of mass cavalry expeditions such as against the Xiongu. Rome at its Prime???? Eh. Probally around Trajan-Severus. Roman cavalry didn't become extremeley in well use till Emperor Gallilnus and good Roman cavalry commanders like Aurelian and Constantine came after that.(Roman Legionaires were carrying round shields and wearing chainmail by that time) I'm not saying Rome couldn't adapt fast. Hadrian I believe created a Cataphract force but this didn't really come into much use due to the lack of wars in the Pax Romano. Most battles were sieges at that time.(like Masada)

    Rome did use Cataphracts but most of its cavalry would have been Medium cavalry wearing Legionaire like equipment, a light lance(Lancea or Hasta) and "as many javelins" as possible. Described by Josehpus I believe.
    "However Chinese cavalry commanders would definetely been more knowledgeble of mass cavalry expeditions such as against the Xiongu."

    Right, they'd have experience dealing with cavalry based armies, which the Legion was not so irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    That is were I would agree with you. Roman Legionaires or Auxilia spearmen would destroy a typical Han levy. The problem is those medium cavalry you talked about could link up to a proffesional Han field army.
    The "professional Han field army" was a small core of imperial guards and officer. The rest were glorified militia.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Agreed. In a field like Cahrae, the Han has an advantage, in a hilly terrain or a mountain terrain the Romans do.
    I wouldn't say they have an advantage as much as I am saying they wouldn't lose as badly to the Romans.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  2. #82
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    1,050

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    What would happen in a three way between the Romans, the Han and the Gupta empire? just curious to know.

  3. #83

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    It is wrong to say the romans had to deal with countless fronts while the Han had only the North. The Romans in the Empire had only to deal with the Northern and Eastern border. The west had no enemies and the south was defendable with minimal ressources.

    It is true that the Tribes in the north were a problem for the Han, but that isn't it alone. The Himalayaplateau was a constant thread from where constantly Tibetian Tribes invaded the western border of the realm. The south had no large kingdomes and empire, but was also allways a possible threat. Further had the Han the disadvantage that they were a continental empire, while the romans could hold back on the mediterranean sea for supply and logistics.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  4. #84

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Han military = 1 actual full time soldier + 100 militiamen + a few good commanders
    Roman military = full time soldiers + a few good commanders + revolts every 5 seconds

    take your pick

  5. #85

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    It is wrong to say the romans had to deal with countless fronts while the Han had only the North. The Romans in the Empire had only to deal with the Northern and Eastern border. The west had no enemies and the south was defendable with minimal ressources.

    It is true that the Tribes in the north were a problem for the Han, but that isn't it alone. The Himalayaplateau was a constant thread from where constantly Tibetian Tribes invaded the western border of the realm. The south had no large kingdomes and empire, but was also allways a possible threat. Further had the Han the disadvantage that they were a continental empire, while the romans could hold back on the mediterranean sea for supply and logistics.

    The Han never had to deal with an equivalent of the Seleucids or Carthage or Ptolemy's Egypt. That was my point.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  6. #86

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    The Han never had to deal with an equivalent of the Seleucids or Carthage or Ptolemy's Egypt. That was my point.
    The Xiongnu had an powerfull realm, military even stronger than the Parthians... and specially in the second phase of the Han-Dynasty they had to deal with a row of rising kingdomes like Korean Kingdomes, rebelling commandaries like Nankrang, and new steppe foederations.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  7. #87

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    The Xiongnu had an powerfull realm, military even stronger than the Parthians... and specially in the second phase of the Han-Dynasty they had to deal with a row of rising kingdomes like Korean Kingdomes, rebelling commandaries like Nankrang, and new steppe foederations.

    Xiongnu were more powerful based on what?
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  8. #88

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    It really wouldn't be that tough. The Han crossbows were simply bows placed on a stock.

    http://www.hxlsw.com/UpLoadFiles/Pics/57784601.jpg

    The Han xbow's purpose was to be a simple missile weapon that any peasant could use with minimal training. It's a far cry from something like this:

    http://cf067b.medialib.glogster.com/media/a4/a42da7d2277df3e3f057b6150a82abff65a0a676bca5db0ca8a78600cec38407/crossbow.jpg

    ...that had some actual piercing power from the technology of its time. Han xbows didn't need to pierce heavy armor so its use against Legionnaires would be of limited value. A line of Roman slingers against Han xbowmen would take heavier initial casualties but then persevere due to higher rate of fire. That is assuming the Legionnaires don't provide cover even.
    Um you obviously know nothing about crossbows. A crossbow is designed to have extra draw weight. The reason why European crossbow is more powerful than the normal European bow. Um I am pretty sure the Chinsese crossbow was designed to pierce armour. And you don't think the crossbowmen don't have shields?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Truth of the matter is both sides' "xbows" would be inefficient against the other. The Han xbows designed to deal with mostly unarmored tribal cavalry of the north
    Chinese invented crossbows before the major Xiongnu wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    would do little to a Legionnaire and the Roman's manuballistae would not be optimal against lighter armored Han infantry. Bows and slingers would be more capable.
    Again Chinese infantry did carry shields. Also not all Roman soldiers were Legionaires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Yeah the Han cavalry would number more but I would say, so what? As for Han army fielding 100,000 professional troops, this simply isn't true. They had a small core standing cavalry army (External/Northern army) which was augmented by limited term servicemen that would serve a couple of years. This is a far cry from the Mariam military system of professional standing troops. As far as logistical capabilities went, Rome had to manage a front on all sides. Han had to deal mostly with the north and a bit of the west. Han history also makes note of numerous times when the northern army got cut off from its resources fighting the tribal armies. Nothing really suggests superior logistics on the part of the Han, if anything quite the opposite.
    Han roads were way larger than Roman ones.Plus field far more horses. I don't understand how the Han are only designed to fight tribal armies. They had recorded expereince from the past Civil Wars fighting their own kind who used heavy infantry.

    I don't understand how the Romans have superior logistics, when the Romans replaced their active front system to a mobile reserve system or reserves and frontline militia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    The Han would field more missile troops but their effectiveness against the Legion would be limited since the Han xbow was not made to pierce such heavy armor but to ward off light/unarmored tribal cavalry.
    The average draw weight of a leg loaded crossbow in the Han period was 6 dan, or around 6x60lb. i.e; 163kgs, his is based on the measurment at the time. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...bow-vs-scutum/
    That is almost 3 times the power of an English Longbow. Yes it would go right through that Scutum like a knife though butter. This would make the Romans form Testudo weakening the capability to fight cavalry.(which is numerically superior to the Romans.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    "However Chinese cavalry commanders would definetely been more knowledgeble of mass cavalry expeditions such as against the Xiongu.
    And not capable enough to stop a band of slow moving foot soldiers right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Right, they'd have experience dealing with cavalry based armies, which the Legion was not so irrelevant.
    Yeah, the Chinese have no idea what heavy infantry is. The victors of the War of the Seven Kingdoms, the Qin stressed their cavalry advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    The "professional Han field army" was a small core of imperial guards and officer. The rest were glorified militia.
    It doesn't matter if militia or not. Roman armies in fact have been defeated numerous times by less trained armies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    I wouldn't say they have an advantage as much as I am saying they wouldn't lose as badly to the Romans.
    Lets say they both lined up in a field. Han has the cavalry advantage and the missle advantage. Its plain and simple math.

  9. #89

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    Xiongnu were more powerful based on what?
    Parthia had only and Army between 50k and 70k people. The manpool potential of the Xiongnu was much bigger.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  10. #90
    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

    During the Three Kingdoms period Yuan Shao was able to field 10,000 cavalry at Guandu and Cao Cao only 5,000. It seems that 10,000 cavalry was the norm for the large armies although Ma Chao reportedly fielded more than that (probably due to his proximity of the steppe in Xiliang).

    "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

  11. #91
    Col. Tartleton's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cape Ann
    Posts
    13,053

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    A hand drawn wooden prod crossbow is not comparable to a windlass drawn steel prod arbalest. One is weaker than a proper bow but easier to use. The other is comparable to a firearm.
    The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
    The search for intelligent life continues...

  12. #92

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    If Parthians, Sassanids, and the Germanic people could defeat Rome why not Han? (Oh Huns too)
    炸鸡

  13. #93

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Um you obviously know nothing about crossbows. A crossbow is designed to have extra draw weight. The reason why European crossbow is more powerful than the normal European bow. Um I am pretty sure the Chinsese crossbow was designed to pierce armour. And you don't think the crossbowmen don't have shields?
    There's a major difference between a crossbow in the 2nd century AD and the ones in the 15th century. Obviously there is a failure on your part to grasp that. Being "pretty sure" on the role of crossbows doesn't amount to much in an actual intellectual discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Chinese invented crossbows before the major Xiongnu wars.
    I know that. But that doesn't change the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Again Chinese infantry did carry shields. Also not all Roman soldiers were Legionaires.
    What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Han roads were way larger than Roman ones.Plus field far more horses. I don't understand how the Han are only designed to fight tribal armies. They had recorded expereince from the past Civil Wars fighting their own kind who used heavy infantry.

    I don't understand how the Romans have superior logistics, when the Romans replaced their active front system to a mobile reserve system or reserves and frontline militia.
    Most Han roads weren't even paved. The han army was designed to fight tribal armies because for the most part that is pretty much all they fought. They had a small core of professional troops composed of cavalry and officers and the rest were soldiers with limited experience and training...more or less glorified militia. Furthermore the Roman Empire surpassed the Han in metal output by leaps and bounds in iron, lead, copper, silver and gold.

    Craddock, Paul T.: "Mining and Metallurgy", in: Oleson, John Peter (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, p. 108; Sim, David; Ridge, Isabel (2002): Iron for the Eagles. The Iron Industry of Roman Britain, Tempus, Stroud, Gloucestershire, ISBN 0-7524-1900-5, p. 23; Healy, John F. (1978): Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, Thames and Hudson, London, ISBN 0-500-40035-0, p. 196

    Hong, Sungmin; Candelone, Jean-Pierre; Patterson, Clair C.; Boutron, Claude F.: "History of Ancient Copper Smelting Pollution During Roman and Medieval Times Recorded in Greenland Ice", Science, Vol. 272, No. 5259 (1996), p. 247

    Callataÿ, François de: "The Graeco-Roman Economy in the Super Long-Run: Lead, Copper, and Shipwrecks", Journal of Roman Archaeology, Vol. 18 (2005), pp. 361–372 (363f.)

    Hong, Sungmin; Candelone, Jean-Pierre; Patterson, Clair C.; Boutron, Claude F.: "Greenland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago by Greek and Roman Civilizations", in: Science, Vol. 265, No. 5180 (1994), pp. 1841

    Patterson, C. C.: "Silver Stocks and Losses in Ancient and Medieval Times", The Economic History Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1972), p. 229

    Wagner, Donald B.: "The State and the Iron Industry in Han China", NIAS Publishing, Copenhagen 2001, ISBN 87-87062-77-1, p. 73

    Scheidel, Walter: "The Monetary Systems of the Han and Roman Empires", in: Scheidel, Walter (ed.): Rome and China. Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-533690-0, p. 179

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    The average draw weight of a leg loaded crossbow in the Han period was 6 dan, or around 6x60lb. i.e; 163kgs, his is based on the measurment at the time. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...bow-vs-scutum/
    That is almost 3 times the power of an English Longbow. Yes it would go right through that Scutum like a knife though butter. This would make the Romans form Testudo weakening the capability to fight cavalry.(which is numerically superior to the Romans.)
    And your source is a Chinese history forum? Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    And not capable enough to stop a band of slow moving foot soldiers right?
    The Roman army wasn't a "band of slow moving foot soldiers." The point which you so missed was that the Han army was set up to fight a military unlike that of the Romans.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Yeah, the Chinese have no idea what heavy infantry is. The victors of the War of the Seven Kingdoms, the Qin stressed their cavalry advantage.
    The Han never really had heavy infantry comparable to Rome.

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    It doesn't matter if militia or not. Roman armies in fact have been defeated numerous times by less trained armies.
    Yeah it does matter because training makes a difference. Equipment makes a difference. Just because Rome lost some battles doesn't wash away the fact that they won the over whelming majority of them. Poor argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Lets say they both lined up in a field. Han has the cavalry advantage and the missle advantage. Its plain and simple math.
    No, it really isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroskiDerpman View Post
    If Parthians, Sassanids, and the Germanic people could defeat Rome why not Han? (Oh Huns too)
    Sure they could. I'm not saying it's impossible, but we're talking about what is more likely. By the way you know what all the people you listed above have in common? They were all defeated by the Romans in the end.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  14. #94

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    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.
    Actually is the opposite , at the time of the height of roman empire the population of RE was larger than the one of Han China , the main disadvantage of romans is that they ruled over different cultures while chines over one single culture wich made it easier to conscript and levy , but on other hand romans could gather on troops of all kind of terrain use and of many different types while hand army was limited on strategic resources and tactical advances .

    ------CONAN TRAILER--------
    RomeII Realistic Heights mod
    Arcani
    I S S G A R D
    Creator of Ran no Jidai mod
    Creator of Res Gestae
    Original Creator of severall add ons on RTW from grass to textures and Roman Legions
    Oblivion Modder- DUNE creator
    Fallout 3 Modder
    2005-2006 Best modder , skinner , modeler awards winner.
    actually modding skyrim [/SIZE]

  15. #95

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    @capathian

    Sassanids were defeated by Arabs, the Romans were on the verge too. The Germans defeated the Western Romans, Kingdom of Italy anybody? Ostrogoths?

    The last remains of the rotting carcass that was once Rome was destroyed by the Ottomans. I wouldn't even call them Romans by then more like a Greek Kingdom which lost their own identity of being Greek.

    In the end Rome lost.
    Last edited by BroskiDerpman; September 01, 2013 at 06:58 PM.
    炸鸡

  16. #96

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by PROMETHEUS ts View Post
    Actually is the opposite , at the time of the height of roman empire the population of RE was larger than the one of Han China , the main disadvantage of romans is that they ruled over different cultures while chines over one single culture wich made it easier to conscript and levy , but on other hand romans could gather on troops of all kind of terrain use and of many different types while hand army was limited on strategic resources and tactical advances .
    Why are you repeating this again? I allready gave you a valid counterresponse:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    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.
    The Han dynasty didn't consisted of only one big culture, this is entirely wrong. As others stated they had large nomadic population etc. the same as the romans as their auxillaries. In the south pre-vietnamies populations and in the northeast koreans, mohe, malgal and further most not every chinese within the han empire was a han chinese there are distinctions which are equally than between the diffrent european cultures today. Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't existing...

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  17. #97

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Han is one type of people, ever went to China? There's plenty of other ethnic groups which wouldn't understand my variant of Chinese, heck where I'm from the language is spoken differently than the official Mandarin.

    Don't forget other minorities that differ from Han people in culture or other stuff. Some are mountain men etc etc. (I'm Han though )

    Though Han are farmers so of course their population is larger and the other groups get slowly assimilated.

    Even Han are different...
    Last edited by BroskiDerpman; September 01, 2013 at 07:06 PM.
    炸鸡

  18. #98

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    Quote Originally Posted by BroskiDerpman View Post
    @capathian

    Sassanids were defeated by Arabs, the Romans were on the verge too. The Germans defeated the Western Romans, Kingdom of Italy anybody? Ostrogoths?

    The last remains of the rotting carcass that was once Rome was destroyed by the Ottomans. I wouldn't even call them Romans by then more like a Greek Kingdom which lost their own identity of being Greek.

    In the end Rome lost.
    The Sassanids had the last nail in their coffin put by the Arabs, but you forgot the entire long and bloody war they had had with the Romans where they were successful. The Ostrogoths defeated a portion of the Roman Empire that was already heavily in decline and hardly counts. And what you refer to as a "rotting carcass" aka the "Byzantine Empire" aka the continuation of the Roman Empire was without a bit of exaggeration the most advanced civilization up until the the late 1100s.

    In the end, everyone loses. We all die. So horrible argument to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by BroskiDerpman View Post
    Han is one type of people, ever went to China? There's plenty of other ethnic groups which wouldn't understand my variant of Chinese, heck where I'm from the language is spoken differently than the official Mandarin.

    Don't forget other minorities that differ from Han people in culture or other stuff. Some are mountain men etc etc. (I'm Han though )

    Though Han are farmers so of course their population is larger and the other groups get slowly assimilated.

    Even Han are different...
    Han is one type of people today. How many people that would never be considered Han even a few hundred years ago are now passed off as Han? Today the term "Han" is almost like saying "European." There is no distinction and everyone is lumped in together. During the actual Han Dynasty and after for example you had millions of nomads settled and assimilated into the cultural name "Han."
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  19. #99

    Default Re: The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China

    War between Rome and Sassanids was more like a stalemate with numerous incursions by Rome. (So Rome has the slight edge sometimes and Sassanids get the edge sometimes too) By the time the Arabs rose both sides were heavily exhausted from wars.

    Sassanids are more culturally similar and mostly closer by land (Not including Syria) So of course Sassanids get eliminated first, Byzantium was near the verge of collapse but survived.

    Of course Han is one type of people (Which is split into many other groups too), there are other minority groups too. (Those minorities are actually different types of people) The term Han is nothing like saying "I'm European" Have you ever went to China at all? I have and it's not like what you say. There are still native people who are physically different and culturally. Nomads aren't the only type of people that are non Han in China... In China the gov't does not lump you into one group, different ethnic groups actually get bonuses on gov't tests! i.e All the Han groups are neutral but some groups get a few extra points in the gov't test which is quite significant to whether you're allowed to enter a type of university or not.
    Last edited by BroskiDerpman; September 01, 2013 at 08:22 PM.
    炸鸡

  20. #100
    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

    The Han Empire actually ruled more than one culture, aside from Han Chinese there were all sorts of nomads in the north and tribal peoples in the south as well as Koreans and what would one day become Vietnamese, Cambodian and Siamese people. The main group of infantry was recruited among the Han while cavalry and light infantry were recruited from nomads and southern tribal people. It just so happens that the most important part of the army (the heavy infantry) is recruited from among the Han. Although that is not too different from the Republic and Early Roman Empire when most of the legionaries were recruited from people of Italian and Greek stock and all of the others were usually auxilia and cavalry.

    "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

Posting Permissions

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