Rome Vs Han China

[Praetorian 2000]

These are some of he links I

[Praetorian 2000]

[TMPikachu]

On crossbow's slow speed. The Han used an organised drill to counter this. Pretty much, while one rank fired, another reloaded, and when they fired, another began to reload. It was like the gun drills used by 18th century Europeans, exept with crossbows.

 

Han too have been known to win battles outnumbered.

 

and would crossbows pierce the tetsudo? Most definitely yes. Roman shields can stop Roman arrows, but not ones of Han. The Parthians soundly beat them with a mounted cavalry army (the style which Han favours).

 

*an ironic note- On Roman javalins- The Chinese considered javalins as weapons fitting only for barbarians, as they had crossbows.

 

as for Rome vs the Mongols.

It would be a "most glorious slaughter"

 

And you must also remember that the Mongols defeated China last, and fought them first. The mongols warred in the Middle East and rampaged through Europe before being able to defeat the Song. They warred with them for nearly eighty years, suffered their greatest amount of casualties, before they could claim their most sought after prize. The Song are also considered a somewhat militarily weak dynasty in the scope of Chinese history.

 

and this is a fighting force that comes around 1000 years after Rome's demise, that's not really fair.

[Primus Pilus]

I have a question, is it bad that I accidentally reported my own post, because I thought that was to reply.

When I did that I realize my post was not up in the list (my earlier one).

And Hanoi

[Lex]

Let's say this battle takes place at the time of Julian, then my basic strategy would be:

 

1) To use a large amount 'cataphract' heavy cavalary as shock troops. (did the Chinese have such well

armoured cavalry?). I also believe that the normal Roman cavalry would be able to put up a good

against the Chinese cavalry.

 

2) Use a large number of barabarian auxiliaries, and where possible use them to take the brunt of the

attack.

 

3) To hire a large number of barbarians, but not as part of the army, but to promise them land in the

East for their services. Hopefully their massive size and brutal nature would help terrify the Chinese.

And perhaps to use them in the first wave of attacks. The barbarians in the late empire also had good

cavalry, so I would try to hire as many of their horsemen as possible.

 

4) To use archer auxilia from the Middle East. I'm sure that their recurved bows would be as good as those of the Chinese (perhpas better?)

 

5) To use ballista, catapults etc to encounter their apparently advanced projectile weapons.

 

6) Use the testudo formation against the enemy spears and arrows.

 

 

Some from the Chinese History Forum seem to believe that the close formation of Roman legionaries was 'primitive' (I don't). Any comments?

[TMPikachu]

it was primitive, in the sense that a closed order formation makes one very vulnerable to powerful ranged fire. Like early gun drills where you line up and fire being primitive (the sort used back in the day of powdered wigs and tight pants)

 

 

It still has its uses, like taking a cavalry charge. Exept a cavalry charge can be broken by crossbow bolts. You need heavy cavalry to take that blow, and heavy cavalry wasn't around at this time for neither side.

 

Also, at this time, the Han did not fear barbarians. A general of the Han once said "one Han soldier is worth five of theirs"

Ballistas, catapaults, the Han have their own.

 

It seems your tactic of 'Rome vs China' is 'Rome will get everyone else vs China'

[Guest zuwairi]

I dont think Chinese Han army will meet a Roman Legion face to face, they will fight with strategem not by force. Try read Art Of War by Sun Zu and u will know how Han army will fight.

[skel]

i think what most of you guys are doing is putting them all on an even playing field, when in reality, the field is NEVER even. i think the outcome would depend souly on the commander and the way he chose to attack. its quite clear that both armies are vast and would stand an equal chance on the field, with the hans and their cross bows and cavalry, and the romans and their professionalism and experience. i belive history clearly shows that numbers and skill of army are absolutly meaningless if their is a bad commander at the helm.

 

i personally belive that the chinese (although i really know nothing about themA) would resort to almost gorilla like warfare, but the romans however are much more stratigic i belive and while persistance like that of asian armies is one hell of a force to be reckoned with, in the end tactics and well planned events, such as the romans are quite good at, will always prevale(sp?), which as i said..lies in the hands of the commanders.

[Lex]

Hi TMPikachu

 

You forget that when Hannibal used his elaphants against the Roman legions, their commander told them to change formation to a loose formation so that the elaphants would just pass through them. The Romans where very adaptable and the close formation was what gave them the advantage over the loose formations of the barbarians. Order, discipline and adaptability is what seperated them from the barabarians (and even the professional armies they fought).

 

If the Romans saw that a close formation (or any formation) was not working they would simply order them to change formation and they would.

 

The Roman army was very flexible and trained their troops constantly in changing formations as soon as possible. They also trained with shields and weapons that were double that of the normal weapons and they received training from gladiator trainers and based their weapons training on that of the gladiator schools.

 

I also believe that Roman metals were good enough, and the lorica segmentata seems to be quite flexible.

 

And we mustn't forget that Syrians, Africans, Armenians, Jews, Iberians, some barbarians and all the nations and races under the Roman Empire from 212 AD were all Roman citizens. So to use any of them in battle woud not make a difference.

 

And don't forget that if the Romans see that they aren't going to stand a chance against crossbow attacks they aren't going to carry on marching moronically into a hail of arrows/bolts. They had their own archers and horse archers that had excellent bows and would surely be used against the crossbows.

 

The Romans also developed their own form of cataphracts from the Parthians/Persians, so they would have heavy cavalry available.

 

Hi Zuwairi

Yes, I have read the Art of War, the Wordsworth edition, which also has a commentary by a Chinese General from Mao's time.

[Praetorian 2000]

"It seems your tactic of 'Rome vs China' is 'Rome will get everyone else vs China"

 

 

[Praetorian 2000]

[Guest Flamininus]

I don't know a lot about Ancient Chinese military, but as far as I know, the Roman would have won. Remember the Greeks and the Persians. The Greeks (Spartans) had, first of all, the best trained soldiers of the world; their military equipement (body armor, helmet, large shield) was far more efficient than the Persians' (long dress disableing the soldier's moves); last but not least, just like the Greeks, the Romans had an army of volunteer, or citizen-soldier owning land and property. As far as I know, there was no such thing in Han's China. The great Asian empires were closer to the traditional absolute monarchy where the kiing or emperor would raise an Army of conscripts and invade the neighboring territory for his own glory. The Romans, like the Greeks, would elect their own leaders (consul or strategos) and fight for their country.

 

ALso, (once again, I don't know about the CHinese army capacities), the ROman legions were versatile and comfortable with pretty much every type of warfare, ranging from open-field battles to siege, from guerilla to naval battles.

 

For the reasons above, I give my vote to Rome.

[Guest Flamininus]

I forgot to mention the tactics employed on the field. It seems that like the Persians, the Chinese fought individually, one-on-one, and certainly were very good at it. But the Romans, just like the Greeks, fought with whole unit, and therefore delivered the whole strength of the unit to the ennemy. This tactic proved effective with the Greeks at Marathon and Plataea. If the Chinese fought the way the Persians did, the ROman legions, enhanced with the cohorte, would certainly have defeated the Chinese army.

[skel]

i just want to say that i think alot of you mentioend the types of armor used by both armies, and say that it is an advantage or disadvantage because of what they wore...

 

in all reality, no armor ever made could stop a sword or arrow from penetrating flesh in a mortal way. yes armor protected against graces, light slashes, weak thrusts, and other cuts and scraps from weapons and battlefield surroundings, but when it all boils down to it, a sword or arrow will go right through everything you are wearing and it will kill you.

 

just wanted to mention that because i have seen alot of responses saying...oh but our armor is much better!

 

again like i said before.. it would all boil down to tactics and who is in command.

[Jimbow]

in all reality, no armor ever made could stop a sword or arrow from penetrating flesh in a mortal way. yes armor protected against graces, light slashes, weak thrusts, and other cuts and scraps from weapons and battlefield surroundings, but when it all boils down to it, a sword or arrow will go right through everything you are wearing and it will kill you.

 

 

Not the case so far as I'm aware. In the Hundred Years War, Milanese armour stopped even arrows from the English longbow, it was that good. The arrows just bounced or stuck without full penetration. The English almost lost their part of France, had the Italian mercenaries wearing it not decided to loot the baggage train and forget about their French paymasters The French armour was not as good as the Milanese. Can't remember the battle, will post if it comes to mind.

 

In fact, there is a theory that the English longbow was not all that effective against French armour.