nic

Hey, Its seems to be widely said (especially in documentries about him) that Alexander is the greatest General in history. Do you guys think differently or is this claim accurate? thanks.

Praetorian 2000 I'm not trying to be offensive, but some of what you write is a bit incoherent, your probably strapped for time or something or what ever is the reason. It would be easier to understand if you wrote slower or something. Examples: In China as a whole at this time period was completely divided into different kingdoms, you have to see is that the Romans were divided into different kingdoms. Yes I know the Romans did have Civil War like every Empire

Chinese philosophy is nothing to brag about. They deliberately discouraged individual thought, which is why China accomplished nothing for over 1000 years. exactly what thousand years are you talking about? They've been one of the most inventive cultures in history. And Chinese philosophy is just as good as any others. What is your evidence for the 'discouragement of individual thought' thing?

the "kekeke" is cuz im playin around something you obviously arent mature enough to handle with the internet man. I don't really understand what you mean here. So its not laughter? please tell me, I'm really puzzled as to what it is and really really want to know what it is and how its linked to maturity. Im not being sarcastic. Sincerly, I want to know. so chill all you china forum people. this is the internet... What do you mean here too?

Dammit, I had a whole heap of stuff written down but the Intenet cut out and I pressed the preview post button and I ended up losing it all. Ill do it rough all over again. Praetorian 2000 'The Roman Empire lasted over 1000 years (just to let all you know) but as a world ruler. I think, 600 years.' Anthro's says it all. but when exactly is this 600 years as world power exactly, just wondering. -Also I would like to read those papers on roman tactics. I could probably show you the one I was talking about too if you wanted. - Romans didn't have single man crossbows did they?. And China had the big ones too. - Ofcourse rome wasn't dumb, the letters of Caesar and Cicero are great literary works that I know of, but I think its commonly known that the Greeks are more responisble for the shape of western civ and thought. - The points of Rome being more prepared to fight an unformiliar enemy then China I agree with. Geography gave them that one. But I don't think that gives the Romans the win. China could adapt its tactics too and hell, with the amount of people they have they would propably have the time to adapt before too long. - And the 'lightyears ahead' remark was just straight from the paper, its called hyperbole, don't take it literary. 'Hello!!!! the Romans and the Greeks are famous for fighting as one unit, or as a war machine, is got to tell you something about Roman and Greek warfare here.' I don't exactly get what you mean, are you saying that a 'one unit, or as a vast war machine' is better then a one unit or vast war machine than can operate as a mass unit or lots of independant groups as is what han can do? I thought you said Rome had modern tactics but mass units are not modern warfare. Athen's had 2 year compulsery service for 18 yr old called ?ephepois?, Im pretty sure, and they had heaps of morale.

'the hans only lasted 400 years? how long did the romans last? kekekekekek ' Geez man, Rome's length of history is nothing compared to China's (remember, Han is just one of the dynasties) Sure, Rome's time was great but you have no real reason to 'kekeke' And remember that Rome didn't start off big, even by around the 350's bc it didn't control even half of the Italian perninsula. I've read that things really started happening after they defeated Hanibal's forces in 207bc (and remember, for a time it seemed likely he could crush Rome). Rome was moving to the defensive, and on its decline by about the start of the 3rd century. So if you calculate the dates difference, 207bc to 200, its not much different. So Rome's actual greatness isn't much different to Han China's, but then, China's overall length just blitzs it. 'also you say what would stop the hans from attacking the romans in the same ways that Parthians did? well im sure that since the romans have fought the parthains..after the first battle of the hans, seeing that they are fighting the same way, would devise tactics and strategies to counter... such as any good tactition would' Well whats your point, is it that Roman generals can think? If so then big deal, the Chinese have brains too you know. And quite frankly I don't think Rome is exactly known for there great minds. I can remember a joke saying something like: when the gods were handing out drains the Romans thought they said brains and took heaps. Hence there remarkable aquaducts. Also I think its said that Rome copied much of its cultural aspects and knowledge from the Greeks who they admired greatly. Its not to say the Romans weren't smart (far from it) but there is a reason as to why Greece, and not Rome, is regarded as the cradle of western civilization. And I just read a big paper on Chinese warfare. China has the largest documented history of warfare in the world it said. It also said that the Chinese tactics were more based on strategy and intelligence, rather then force of numbers, this is what goes on in modern times. The book, "the Art of War" and others indicate this. It also talks about how China's warfare was lightyears ahead of the wests, but I won't ram that one down your throat. If you want I could show you the paper.

In a review of the game it said there was one fictional unit in the game, does any one know what that is? Its not the screaming women or incendery pigs.

You guys that run this forum, where did my topic about han china vs Rome go? that topic was going well with lots of hits Please reactivate it, or tell me why its gone Thanks.

Some say that Romes great advantage is its professional army. Is it really that great an advantage? and is china's really similar to the Persian's as is what they say alot also. Were stirrups not part of China or Romes army at around han times. Ive read that when the parthians were fighting Rome during Carrea they took them out with horse archers using the 'Parthian shot' where they can twist around to shoot behind them. Did they have the stirrup then if they could do that. Is it right to presume that a generic Roman army conisted of tens of thousands of troops while a Chinese generic army consisted of hundreds of thousands of troops? It seems to me that Roman troops seem to be generally better armoured then Chinese troops is this wrong? If not, is it because the Chinese had more emphasis on mobility?. Thanks.

I think it was the time of augustus, that the Han were the most riches of the two and generally had much more gold. I remember it saying that Augustus told all the rich nobles, or what ever, to stop buying silk because it was taking gold out of Rome ( and going to China [indirectly]).

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.

I would like to see that post.

I think that this is a little untrue and extravagant. More facts would be useful. Fafnir, I recommend you check out the Chinese history forum where they give there opinions on this same subject (han vs Rome). Some of the advantages they say the Chinese have are: Better metal, crossbows, numbers, more fluid -some describe it as more modern- battle formations as apposed to formations like the phalanx. Also cavalry with stirrups gets mentioned. Have a look yourself. Chinese history forum

'the members of this forum dont need to prove anything to you that Rome could defeat the Han Dynasty in war' I know they don't need to, I'm just asking. Anyway, I suppose its a topic of more interest to those in the Chinese History Forum because, in this western dominated world, Rome and the like seem to always be the greatest at everything. You only have to watch the history channel's documenturies to see a bit of this.

Come on doesn't anybody wanna play around with this one? I know this forum is only young but you should reply and contribute as much as you can to increase its growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but it got there eventually through ambition and perseverence. Maybe this link to the chinese history forum on the same topic will give you some inspiration. chinese history forum These guys recon China would win due to: numbers, crossbow, cavalry etc.. One of the post said that the Roman empires pop was only 7 million compared to China's 50 odd million. I learnt from this forum that it was actually much larger. I suggest you check the CHF out, theres about 4 pages of pro Han stuff that you might find biased. I also want to know wether it is biased. Im taking info from both forums to get an unbiased picture, but so far, China is kickin your ass due to the lack of info on your side.