Anthony Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 hey, my history class is having a debate tomorrow about which is better: Rome or the Han Dynasty. I was selected to write a statement about why the Han Dynasty's military acomplishments were superior to that of Rome's. Can anyone help me out? I need some reasons why the Han Dynasty's military accomplishments were superior to that of Rome's. If i were to get some in depth answers from anyone, i would greatly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 www.google.com ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) hey, my history class is having a debate tomorrow about which is better: Rome or the Han Dynasty. I was selected to write a statement about why the Han Dynasty's military acomplishments were superior to that of Rome's. Can anyone help me out? I need some reasons why the Han Dynasty's military accomplishments were superior to that of Rome's. If i were to get some in depth answers from anyone, i would greatly appreciate it. They weren't. You're fighting a losing cause on behalf of a multiculturalist nincompoop. BTW, have you heard that nincompoop is derived from the Latin non compos mentes? You can learn this and many other exciting factoids (some even true) by using wikipedia. Seriously, the Han vs Rome debate has been discussed on a previous thread. Edited January 25, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) If you want great info on this funny subject go to china history forum where you can see all the biased opinions on this subject,i think on the china history forum the thread is like 90 pages or something like that.All you have to do is click on Han and it should be there the thread is called rome vs han,for the most part all the pro china people say everything about han was far better than rome ever was and some people go as far as saying the infantry of han was better than the legions i find that very funny,i wish i knew how to copy and paste there funny comments on this thread it would be very funny and biased,im not joking the people over there think evey thing about han china is vastly superior to rome and i mean everything,i joined that thread just to annoy them. Edited January 25, 2007 by Titus001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Yes, you are fighting for a losing cause. The only things I can point out is(and they are very weak points): The Han army was easily fed by rice year round due to the climate and they always had greater #s. Insurrection by the army against the Han dynasty was not that common due to the fact that the Chinese culture was very ardent in that the fact that the emperor was supreme(that and the fact he never left the Forbidden city much). Edited January 26, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I dont know even why a history class would want a debate on this subject,rome in my opinion had the better army and would own han in a battle b/c there infantry was far superior of what of han had which were mainly peasant farmers,im not saying all but a great number were peasants,the han china people at that website would say different but an army of the size of han would have no way of having pro army of what rome had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest honeybee Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 (edited) If you want great info on this funny subject go to china history forum where you can see all the biased opinions on this subject,i think on the china history forum the thread is like 90 pages or something like that.All you have to do is click on Han and it should be there the thread is called rome vs han,for the most part all the pro china people say everything about han was far better than rome ever was and some people go as far as saying the infantry of han was better than the legions i find that very funny,i wish i knew how to copy and paste there funny comments on this thread it would be very funny and biased,im not joking the people over there think evey thing about han china is vastly superior to rome and i mean everything,i joined that thread just to annoy them. No offense, but I don't think this forum is anything close to unbiased. I've read the arguments in both this forum and theirs, and I find theirs alot more in line with proper academic pursuit(as biased as some of them might be). At least the China history forum cite cross comparison academic sources in their arguments. All this forum threw around was statements. Also, if you actually bothered to read the whole thing, they did not think China was superior in every aspect. The "funny" quotes that you are looking for would be this one: "Here is Chao Cuo's quote: "Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman." The only terrain that Romans gladius is going to have an advantage seem to be winding ways and dangerous precipices. In another word, compressed terrain. While in all other area,(flat plain, thick grassland, mountainous gorges) Han has the tactical advantage in weaponry. " This is coupled with the fact that Han had superior metallurgy skills and more powerful missiles(crossbows) which led many to the conclusion that it had the superior infantry. Pardon me, but I failed to see the humor. They provided both primary and secondary sources for their arguments, which is more than can be said for you. Or do you want to challenge that with your source rather than assumption? Or do you find citing sources as something humorous because it is not based on complete baselss statements on your part? And just curious, what is your name on that forum? Because I'm pretty sure all your claims were already refuted one by one in that thread with academic sources. Edited May 8, 2007 by honeybee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Frankly, from my perspective, there is no amount of academic pursuit that can definitively prove the subjective argument relating to which culture, army, etc. was better. I don't really care if people here say that Romans were better because they had trained flying midgets with propeller arms or if people on this other forum say that the Chinese were better because they had locomotives that shot razor blades out the side as they passed by. It simply doesn't matter. Hence the relegation of these types of endless hypothetical threads to the obscure "arena" section of the forum. Comparison for purposes of general historical awareness is one thing, but such attempts routinely devolve into 'my culture is better than yours' shouting matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 If you want great info on this funny subject go to china history forum where you can see all the biased opinions on this subject,i think on the china history forum the thread is like 90 pages or something like that.All you have to do is click on Han and it should be there the thread is called rome vs han,for the most part all the pro china people say everything about han was far better than rome ever was and some people go as far as saying the infantry of han was better than the legions i find that very funny,i wish i knew how to copy and paste there funny comments on this thread it would be very funny and biased,im not joking the people over there think evey thing about han china is vastly superior to rome and i mean everything,i joined that thread just to annoy them. No offense, but I don't think this forum is anything close to unbiased. I've read the arguments in both this forum and theirs, and I find theirs alot more in line with proper academic pursuit(as biased as some of them might be). At least the China history forum cite cross comparison academic sources in their arguments. All this forum threw around was statements. Also, if you actually bothered to read the whole thing, they did not think China was superior in every aspect. The "funny" quotes that you are looking for would be this one: "Here is Chao Cuo's quote: "Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman." The only terrain that Romans gladius is going to have an advantage seem to be winding ways and dangerous precipices. In another word, compressed terrain. While in all other area,(flat plain, thick grassland, mountainous gorges) Han has the tactical advantage in weaponry. " This is coupled with the fact that Han had superior metallurgy skills and more powerful missiles(crossbows) which led many to the conclusion that it had the superior infantry. Pardon me, but I failed to see the humor. They provided both primary and secondary sources for their arguments, which is more than can be said for you. Or do you want to challenge that with your source rather than assumption? Or do you find citing sources as something humorous because it is not based on complete baselss statements on your part? And just curious, what is your name on that forum? Because I'm pretty sure all your claims were already refuted one by one in that thread with academic sources. Could it perhaps be that we don't care? I've been to the Han China forums and this topic has been discussed to death and without resolve all to prove something that can never be proven. Here we don't care and try to avoid the subject, sometimes people bring it up and they are usually those who are new and don't understand the atmosphere here. As far as I'm concerned Rome was the rulers of the known world and the masters of the Mediterranean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest honeybee Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Could it perhaps be that we don't care? I've been to the Han China forums and this topic has been discussed to death and without resolve all to prove something that can never be proven. Here we don't care and try to avoid the subject, sometimes people bring it up and they are usually those who are new and don't understand the atmosphere here. As far as I'm concerned Rome was the rulers of the known world and the masters of the Mediterranean. Oh, its fine that you don't care. But its not fine when people distort facts to make their point. This is all I am concerned about.(btw, the reason that the thread in CHF went to 90 pages was not because they discussed Rome vs. Han for all of those pages, that was decided long ago.(until new members who doesn't even bother reading shows up, so they have to be discredited all over again) Most pages in that thread went on tangents and discussed about topics that has nothing to do with Rome vs. Han) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Who was stronger? Rome or Parthia? 1. Parthia because the victory of Carrhae. 2. Rome because they repeatedly sacked major parthian cities. 3. Neither, as war did not changed much the border between beligerants. For a real event several answers can be given and all can backed with serious academic arguments. But the problem it's even more difficult. Did the romans ever attempted to conquer Parthia? Or Parthians Rome? What were the plans of Crassus or Trajan? Was Trajan defeated by parthians or by the jewish rebellion? Did they saw this as a major goal? Did they invest maximum ammount of roman resources? etc etc ad nauseum. War, as any human activity, does not exist in vacuum. It's connected with goals, means, resources, reasons, leadership, internal and external relations, logistics etc. When you say that people used academic sources to debate an imaginary comparison you make me laugh. What kind of sources can be relevant for this topic? A comparison like this could be fun and I had fun with the comparison between legions and knights, but for this you need to take it easy and abandon both the irelevant sources and the "my guys are uber" positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts