Rome Vs Han China

[dnewhous]

Octavian is the one who really organized the empire's army.

 

I have been very impressed with the Romans, given what I have learned about their military organization. The Romans discarded the Greek phalanx because it wasn't good enough. Yet the Persians relied on Greek mercenaries because the Greek phalanx was so much better than their own military organization. Alexander commented that there were more Greeks fighting against him than for him. But this is anecdotal since I know very little about Chinese history.

 

As demonstrated by the people who think the Roman empire only had 7 million people, very few people know much about both.

 

But generally speaking, Western civilization fields superior armies - where numbers don't tell the true strength. The Spartans are credited with starting this tradition. The Roman army was much larger than the organized armies of the European middle ages, but it was typically outnumbered by the natives as the empire expanded. Alexander had 30000 infantry and 5000 cavalry and look what he accomplished.

 

Even today, China only fields an army of 275,000 men that we would consider a front line fighting force, compared to 500,000 by the United States (we are relying heavily on 2nd and 3rd stringers in Iraq). The rest of the Chinese army is for the purpose of occupation. If it weren't for the other 2.5 million men the Chinese empire, even now, would splinter up. Not just Tibet. Various officials would grab what men and power they could and form independent domains.

 

History also demonstrates something else - the requirements of an army that is designed to destroy other armies in the field are very different from one that is designed for occupation. I say the Roman army destroys the Chinese army in the field, but occupying the empire is hopeless. If the population of the Roman empire was underestimated by these people, the population of China may have been too.

 

A more interesting question - could the Roman empire have fought off an invasion by the Mongols? (Moving Ghenghis about 1000 years into the past.) The Chinese couldn't. And they certainly outnumbered the Mongols.

 

Technologically, the Romans liked heavy infantry whereas the Chinese and Mongols liked cavalry and archers. The Mongol composite bow far outclasses anything even today. But the Romans had those giant shields.

 

However, military prowess is not the best way to measure an empire. The Roman empire is better because it fell. This eventually led to the decentralization and innovation of the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. The Chinese Empire is what Rome would have been had the stagnation of the late empire continued for 1000 years.

[Guest tpw]

New line of reasoning: did the Huns head west because they could not defeat the Han empire? We all know the outcome of Hun vs. Rome: visitors handily defeated the home team (Rome); I do believe the Huns had very little success against the Han though. Amazing how effectively deterrent a big fat wall and a few zillion people can be.

[dnewhous]

The Huns invaded when the empire was weak and in decline. If they had invaded during the reign of the Antonines I doubt they would have been successful. The discipline and professionalism of the army wasn't there any more.

[Primus Pilus]

I'm afraid I'm not very well versed on the eastern Huns, but in the west.... Atilla wreaked havoc long after Rome had declined from its previous state of military authority. Still, despite his devastation, he was eventually defeated. (Partially at the hands of the Germanic tribes he helped displace)

 

My understanding of the Huns in China was that co-existed fairly peacefully during the strength of the Han Dynasty. Perhaps that was because they couldn't match them at that time? The eastern Huns did however have their own day in the sun during the waning days of Han China. Liu Yuan a Hunnic King, in the early 4th century AD did establish part of the Zhao Dynasty.

 

I do think there is a serious distinction to be made between eastern and western Huns. There are probably some environmental, social and perhaps even genetic differences. I am no expert though and admit ignorance as to the details.

[Guest Imperator]

Well, according to that Chinese forum, it seems that the Chinese uses huge amount of crossbows and cavalries. Their infantries rely on "loose formation" so that when facing archers they do not suffer as much losses. However I generally believe that forums people to be biased. Even thought the Chinese Army used crossbows, the crossbows cannot be an extremely effective weapon. It has slow firing rate though higher penetration power than normal bows. During the medieval times, crossbows are an ideal weapon in castle sieges because the defenders can hide inside the castle and reload. However we are not talking about castle sieges, but rather an open battle, where there are not many places to hide. In addition, all range weapons have maximum range and effective range. The maximum range of crossbows is approximately 365meters and effective range is about 150 meters. Given the Roman Testudo formation(tortuise), the Romans will deflect most of the crossbows until they come quite close. By that time, the Legions will already be quite close to the archers and all the archers can do is run. And even if the Chinese use their cavalry, all the Romans have to do is form a shield wall and when the cavalries come close enough, the Romans will shower the stupid cavalries with theiy javalins. Then when they are in contact the Romans can simply draw out the other heavier javelin to fight against the cavalry. And Chinese infantries are obviously no match against Roman Legionaries.

[dnewhous]

The loose formation with the infantry doesn't sound particularly impressive.

[skel]

i dont know too much about the chinese but from some of the reasons that you mentioned nic, such as calavary.. i know that horses have been a huge factory in some of romes greatest losses have they not? in wars like with hannible and other barbarians? i recal reading a thread here that mentioned one of romes big defects in its legion was lack of cavalry use...

 

and as far as the chinese pikes nad polearms i do think the romans could chew those up simply through experience of fighting them with other wars.

 

however its my undcerstanding that the romans have a way of snatching a victory under impossible odds and always having just the right commander to do the job, like scipio with hannible ( i use hannible simply cuz i know it better then i do other wars of rome...)

 

my vote would go for rome in a suprising comeback near the end of the war...

[dnewhous]

The Romans adopted cavalry themselves. The Romans in their heyday had the abiility to adopt innovations into their military whereas at their end they were increasingly dependent on foreign mercenaries. Remind anyone of the Persian empire?

 

The Romans didn't have crossbows, but as someone else points out, crossbows weren't very good for cavalry anyway.

[skel]

yes i dont disagree that they had cavalry, but what i was saying is that they didnt use them to their true potential relying in large part on the infintry... am i wrong??

[Praetorian 2000]

Romans did have crossbows, but it was not popular with them. I'll give you a link later.

[Praetorian 2000]

China Would win through Sheer weight of numbers. they could afford to lose 1 Million men in the war without too much economic hardship wheras a war on that scale would Cripple rome.

 

"China Would win through Sheer weight of numbers. they could afford to lose 1 Million men in the war without too much economic hardship wheras a war on that scale would Cripple Rome."

 

 

First off, I think the Han army was about the same size as the Roman army, maybe a little less.

Second of all, if the

[dnewhous]

Don't be so certain that the cultures in the east were not diverse before they were unified. There are at least two major languages in China, Mandarin and Canton. That's not even counting Tibet. It looks like one culture now, but how would Europe look culturally if the empire never broke up?

[nic]

Romans did have crossbows, but it was not popular with them. I'll give you a link later.

I would like to see that post.

[nic]

The loose formation with the infantry doesn't sound particularly impressive.

 

Why not? These days men fight in loose formations. It could have been more dynamic and less vulnerable to arrows. Dont you remember how vulnerable the romans were during the fight against Parthia? There shields and close formation didn't help them much from the arrows.

 

And the stuff about how the Spartans fought so well against the persians is impressive but really the spartans were in a really good spot that gave them a great advantage. The track bottleknecked so that the full persian force was slowed to a tricle. Im sure the Spartans were great worriors but I think this impressive battle of theres they owe mostly to the geography. The Persians were greatly demoralised by the lost and continued down to Athens where they destroyed the abandoned city. The navy battle of Salimus they also lost due to a tricky fluke by the Athenians.

Anyway what do they have to do with Rome and China.

[Scaevola]

If we ignore the obvious questions of who is invading whom, how far are they from supply points, and how do the natives of the area feel about each side...then we are left with a plain of conflict exisiting in isolation.

 

Now the prime determiners in success of Han vs Rome is the penetration of Han arrows and their relative supply. From what I've been able to determine, the Han crossbow and regular bow would have been able to penetrate Roman armor at good range and even the shields up close (under 30 meters). That puts the Roman cavalry at a disadvantage. So the horse will favor the Han.

 

That leaves the foot legionaires. To get through their armor the Han missile troops have to be close enough to either be charged by cavalry, or be advanced on and either pilumed or closed with by the footmen. If there are sufficent missiles on hand, the Han may be able to break the Roman morale, but if the Roamns can do a tactical retreat back to camp the fight would be a draw.

 

If it ever came to a slugging match of infantry vs infantry, generally the result will favor the Romans. Historically, since classical Greek onward, western infantry and arms outshine and defeat eastern infantry.

 

So, I estimate that if all outside problems of supply and support are equal: 1/3 of the time the Hans will win, 1/3 it will be a draw, 1/3 the Romans win.

 

Long winded way of saying...About equal