Rome Vs Han China

[Fafnir]

If it continues on this path, however, the thread will be locked.

Lock it primuspilus, i beggeth thee...

[Primus Pilus]

No worries mate... it is an interesting discussion, just dont want it to get so far out of hand that it loses that.

[skel]

'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.

 

ok seriously.. you guys from the chinese forums need to lighten up. you started this topic on a roman forum, we will be biased to a roman standpoint. if you cant handle it then dont post here.

 

the "kekeke" is cuz im playin around something you obviously arent mature enough to handle with the internet man.

 

 

my point was this, the one who said the hans lasted 400 years made it seem like it was a huge magnificant deal that it was infact 400 years. im actually pretty sure pople have been in europe just as long if not longer as people have been in the east asias due to the common belife that mankind migrated up from africa. that was kind of my point but "geez man" maybe you cant handel a nice friendly online convorsation

 

on the note of the partian comment i made, i was simply saying that ZZT (who did infact seem WAY out of line with his post) made it seem as if the hans would attack the same was as the parthians did , hence cuasing a terrible defeat. all i was saying is that if thats how the hans would infact fight then since the romans are experienced with that form of attacking, they would have a better chance of defending against it.

 

 

so chill all you china forum people. this is the internet...

 

 

ps.

 

"I don't think Rome is exactly known for there great minds."

 

i belive that statment is proven false by almost every record in existance of roman people... Rome was where the briliants gathered my friend.

[ChineseManchurian]

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.

[Fatboy]

QUOTE : " lock it primuspilus, I beggeth thee... " Yes, before we all go insane!

At least lock ME out, I'm starting to hallucinate.........

[skel]

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.

can i ask where you get those winning percent chances from?

 

also i dont think anyone doubts the amount of damage that could be done with the chinese crossbow as its been stated in almost every single post ( and im kinda tired of hearing about is )

 

you also say that you belive the chinese are not good warriors but their range would destroy the romans anyways?

 

well lets just assume that they arent good warriors (which even though im biased to rome i doubt the chinese are in anyways less effective as warriors...) why do you say that, the range alone would destroy the romans when, its my understanding, that the roman legion is a line fighting machine. that is what it is built for. i know from experience through reenactment that linefighting is a very close combat, very comfusing combat.

 

with that knowledge can we assume that the romans would be able to destroy the chinese if they were able to get past the crossbows?

 

also i wanted to ask you chinese forum gowers... what sort of protection did the chinese have against arrow fire? im sorry but every time i think of this post and try to invision the battle i picture japanese soldier/samurai, mostly becuase i know more about them then i do the chinese, and the only thing ive ever seen of chinese fighting is the fairytale like movies they make

 

if the chinese dont use any form of shield (im sure they do i just dont know) then how can you honestly say that the roman auxilery wouldnt anhilate them right off the bat?

[Praetorian 2000]

"Numbers is a big problem, Chinese are not "Barbarians" with low moral to fight. also Chinese have good weapons."

 

Well how do you know they can have low morale if they

[Praetorian 2000]

)

[Anthrophobia]

1) No, the ballista range is not biased information. It's the AVERAGE range of both. And both had "DIFFERENT" ballistas.

2) Seriously, what do you expect Chinese "fanboys" do? It's a ROME V HAN discussion. The point is you take a side, and talk about how "great" their army is. Not to mention that I've seen more than a few posts that says they don't know anything about Han military, and still say that the romans would win, so I doubt you can call the Chinese histoy forum biased, who actually knows something about roman military<no offense>.

3) Rome lasted more than a thousand yrs if you count the Roman Republic, and the Byzantine Empire, not to mention the NUMMEROUS number of successions that took place. The Han lasted 400 with ONE succession<after the succession it moves to another dynasty, not a whole new empire>. You want to count the whole Chinese empire, like the whole Roman empire, than it's +3000 yrs.

4) Just because a country is ahead of another doesn't mean they can counquer the known world. Rome didn't do it, but people here don't ask why "if their ahead why didn't Rome conquer the known world".

5) As i have stated, Rome's formations against arrow fire is INEFFECTIVE against Han arrows. They are only effective against Roman ones. You can't just reject it without proof. Remember carrhae, their formations was quiet useless against Parthian bows, which is also behind that of a recurve bow. Yes the Romans had ranged weapons. That doesn't mean they have the best. This is the reason why the Han didn't have hulking shields against arrow fire, not shields made out of plywood, as well as looser formations against it, instead of mass shields, which would basically mean asking for death.

6) Both sides have tactics! I don't know why people can't figure this out. It's who's in command that's important. Of course both sides have good generals, but both has bad ones as well. It just depends on who is leading the army, a good general, or a lazy drunk?

7) Do you really think Han armies don't have volunteers as well?

8) Everyone's "built" to kick the other sides butt, this is an obvious.

[nic]

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.

[nic]

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?

[dnewhous]

I have now caught up with all the comments. Although I skimmed through a few of the last.

 

The Roman shield was mostly wooden - if that is right, it is toast against the Chinese crossbow. But I have a hard time believing it because what the army did at the outset of a battle (during the Republic days) was have all their soldiers bang on their shields in unison. The sound would intimidate their enemies. This would not have worked if the shield was wooden.

 

The Romans consistently got their butts kicked by the Parthians - I don't believe that. At their height the Romans were great at adapting to defeat their enemies. If they were fighting Parthia for that long I hardly believe they never would have adjusted. They did break the Parthian government eventually, didn't they? And afterwards is when they finally had direct contact with China?

 

The Romans had no cavalry - absolute nonsense.

 

The Romans were dumb - the Romans were engineers to the Greek's philosophers. Chinese philosophy is nothing to brag about. They deliberately discouraged individual thought, which is why China accomplished nothing for over 1000 years.

 

Europeans got slaughtered by Mongols - numbers do matter, and the Europeans were a pale shadow of Rome when they were invaded

 

To the numbers thing - A conscipt army, even with 2 years of training, is not a good match for a professional one. But it looks like Han had a professional army and a conscript army. If the size of their professional army was on par with Rome's then the almost certain advantage of numbers from the conscript army would be a big difference. They would, if nothing else, serve as gun fodder. And that matters.

 

The biggest difference maker in an army is the quality of the NCOs. Senior officers go inside the tent . Senior NCOs stay in the field.

[Anthrophobia]

Well the Roman shield is wooden with iron on the sides and some in the middle, but it's made exactly out of wood. Yes, the Romans did eventually beat parthia<mostly by force of numbers>, and they also did adapt<although it's a LONG way from adapting significantly> to counter Parthian arrows, as displayed by more calvary/looser formations in Eastern rome.

 

I can't imagine anyone saying Rome didn't have calvary. That's just way out there. However, Rome didn't concentrate as heavily on calvary as the Han did<who's number of horses in the nation was at the most compared to others at the same time period>.

 

I don't get how Mongols invading Europe had anything to do with Rome v Han. Different time period equals different weapons, different tactics, ect.

 

Concript armies with 2 yrs of training isn't gun fodder. Look at our armies today. Some just join for college credit <although now with the Iraqi war everything changed>.

[dnewhous]

Look at the Iraqi National Guard.

 

The term of service in the U.S. army is at least 3 years if I'm not mistaken. And it works because there are career NCOs to instruct them. That's something the Russian army has in short supply, even during the cold war.

[nic]

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?