ChineseManchurian

Caesar is way over rated, he is a conqueror but his strategy and tactics are not on the same level with Alexander and Hannibal, by the way, for a good leader luck is important^_^

there is no such war to exactly say who can win a battle, we only could say how many percentage they have. China would have 70% wining rate Rome have 30% Numbers is a big problem, Chinese are not "Barbarians" with low moral to fight. also Chinese have good weapons. Crossbow is the best unit of Han dynasty. It can shoot 900 meters far maxium, can go through all the sheild in the same period. If you don't believe this, you also can't believe long bow piece the armor of knights. 15% of Han army were croosbow unit. the main reason China defeats Hun is because of the crossbow. But I believe Chinese are not good warriors, but their range weapon is enough to destroy Roman legion, the same with Parthian. and Han also have the first Heavy cavalry unit in the world, their cavalry are very strong with composite bows. Then we all knows about Roman legion right? so everyone knows Parthian bows crush Roman armor. I don't want to talk about Roman because everyone knows it. So Han would have more chance to win. PS: I think Julius Caecar is not a really good general, his war tactics is far behind Hannibal and Alexander. most battle he won by enemy's mistake. the best Roman general should be Scipio. We can not compare tactics because we can not know who is leading the army.