Roman Army VS Han Army (historical debate)

[iQing]

Yeah please dont misunderstand
this is a serious historical debate that many historians try to interprete,
not the regular Goku VS superman thread.

why is this debate about Han and Roman ?

Both are strong empires and both has cultural contact in the same era.

Han (china) dynasty and Roman empire have interactions wiith each other around 2000 years ago where both of them trade goods via silk road.
Han and Roman trade silk, horses, gems etc. with each other and both empire are in good terms.

Since both worlds are seperated far from each other, it is not strategic to sstart a war. still both are the most powerful forces in the world at thát time.

Lets compare their military power. who will have better advantage ?

For the Hans, it is established after the warring states and Qin dynasty.
Paper is availableat that time so intelecture and educational advantage is with the Han.
At that moment the most widely read military text "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu is already available at the Han so their strategy planning was quite good.
Since Qin, the old China is united and weigthing system, language and other measurements are standardise for effective running of the country.
For military strength Han is strong considering centuries of warring give them the experience and man force needed.
Since Qin dynasty, China has good defence as the Great wall is already firmly establish. to go beyond the great wall is a huge task. in cities there are also strong walls erected for strong defences. The terrains in China is also a huge advantage for the Han army.
Chinese martial arts also make the Han army a skillful fighting team.

The romans are very well disciplined and they have good record in winning wars. they have great military leaders and well managed facilities in their cities. I think it will be a tight battle as both are very strong but for military strategy and defence factor I vvote for the win of Han dynasty.

[chiking1]

Han dynasty would win.
If the Roman army attacks China, then the chinese would have terrain to their advatage. To the west of China, there is the Tibetan Plateau, for the Roman army to fight on the plateau would mean they get tired a lot faster, and may faint because of the lack of oxygen. While the tibetans are already used to the lack of oxygen, and will easily defeat them.
If China attacked Rome, then it would be a close battle, however, I still think China would win. Why? Because I'm Chinese =P.

[Hattori]

China would so utterly dominate Rome it wouldn't even be funny. The Chinese Junk (and predecessor ships) far outpaced slower Roman models, thus removing Roman ability to transport troops within its lake-empire. In addition, the Chinese have a vastly more numerous, more organized force with greater armor penetration - the Chinese had crossbows when the Romans had slings - as well as lighter and stronger materials. Even at the height of its power, Rome wouldn't stand a chance against China's numerial advantage, not to mention the technological, strategic, and medicine gap between the two empires. Let's not forget that, as usual the Western power was losing currency (in the form of gold + silver) to the Eastern power for goods. China would have far more resources stockpiled and Rome's merchants and populace would be discontent without their revenues and luxuries to sate them for the war.

[iQing]

after researching a bit about weapons

the one sided broadsword is originated from china
it is very forceful weapon in slicing
in terms of melee war, the chinese will win in a close battle combat. roman sword is a bit inferior?

Chinese are good at fire attacking so roman will have terrible disadvantages.

talking about weapons :
compare them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteen_Arms_of_Wushu

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_personal_equipment


the big ass sword used by zabuza and cloud strife is originated from China

[Guy]

Well, I'd say the Han, partly because I'm Chinese and biased (lol), but also because I believe at that time, most of the trade happened in Asia, yes? If the Chinese cut off all the supply routes, then Rome wouldn't really be that impressive without silks from India and other exotic stuff from Arabia, right?

[athenaofstarlite]

You biased Asians! Although, you're probably right...

The thing is, this would never happen: but I'd put a disadvantage to whoever is invading. Romans would either have to cross Tibet, the Himalayas, or go up around through the Russian wilderness. The same with the Chinese. I think either empire would be at a disadvantage after traveling that far. I think Alexander the Great would pwn them both...

[Guy]

You biased Asians! Although, you're probably right...
The thing is, this would never happen: but I'd put a disadvantage to whoever is invading. Romans would either have to cross Tibet, the Himalayas, or go up around through the Russian wilderness. The same with the Chinese. I think either empire would be at a disadvantage after traveling that far. I think Alexander the Great would pwn them both...

Interesting theory... but the one advantage the Han has is that they know the Himalayas and Tibet better than the Romans. So I still think Han will win.

Btw, I hope that "biased Asian" thing was a joke... we pretty much only learn about European history here, and not enough of Asian empires.

[Arei]

The Han was going on at the same time as the Roman Empire proper right? Before the break up and fall of the western portion of the empire?

If so, at the time both armies had their advantages. The Chinese were big on stratagies while the Roman's had a lot of punch in their weapons.

I think it would be a close call and could go either way.. I'm leaning more towards the Han because they'd probably find someway to outsmart the Romans... but the Hun win lol


Learned this in AP World History not too long ago, I shouldnt be having this big of a brainfart since I remember everything else @_@

[SumpfFuchs]

Depending on the terrain, and in a comparison of both armies as a whole I would say that the roman army would win, but due to the fact that at the time the roman empire was in a decline as a whole, its armies no longer as uniform or as much of a unstoppable single force as they where at the empires height the hans would probably win a battle between the two.

@Hattori, the hans did have better ranged weapons, but the Romans did also have ranged weapons, and you can not forget the fact that the Romans had their strength in their infantry.

@iQing, Sorry bud, the romans would win in a close battle, read up on the romans fighting the Gauls/Northern nations, also on the Roman's tactics against the greeks would be helpful also.

@guyklc, this is between the armies, and actually believe it or not, the primary trade center would be located in modern day Isreal and area, being that was the area of which all cross world trade would have to cross through.

[Kaze]

Unfortunately I'm not very schooled on the chinese part, but I do know a thing or two about roman warfare.

First point: the romans have built their empire conquest by conquest, battle by battle, since it occupied only one of the seven hills it had been built on. The Pax Romana period under Traianus was probably one of the very few periods of relative peace. Their pragmatic mentality has allowed them to defeat any and all enemies they encountered, up to say...Hadrian's period, in which they began to fortify themselves.

Second: the roman empire's army was one made by professional soldiers, veteran fighters who fought for a living, and not only romans, but even germanic conscripts, not untrained pesants taken from their villages.

Third: due to the constant engaging in war that the empire went through the romans developed very specific battle tactics, and also a wide variety of weapons. i.e their columns would be devided into 4 lines: archers - privates - veterans - elite, which they would continously cycle throughout the battle. They would also use the ballisitic weapons of the time to wear down their weapons (as anyone would for that matter). I don't think I need to remind anyone of their 'testudo' formation (the shield-covered rectangular formation), which was used to great effect.

I can't say much about naval combat since I don't much about it.

And finally, I believe someone mentioned the Art of War. If you actually read it you'll see that it doesn't provide any tactics, only guidelines on how to be a good general.

[SumpfFuchs]

Well, you can take into consideration that the Romans where able to effectively protect their waters against pirates thus increasing the amount of trade by sea, when speaking of their Naval abilities.

[Kaze]

True, but you can't compare pirates to an organized military force.

[iQing]

Unfortunately I'm not very schooled on the chinese part, but I do know a thing or two about roman warfare.

First point: the romans have built their empire conquest by conquest, battle by battle, since it occupied only one of the seven hills it had been built on. The Pax Romana period under Traianus was probably one of the very few periods of relative peace. Their pragmatic mentality has allowed them to defeat any and all enemies they encountered, up to say...Hadrian's period, in which they began to fortify themselves.

Second: the roman empire's army was one made by professional soldiers, veteran fighters who fought for a living, and not only romans, but even germanic conscripts, not untrained pesants taken from their villages.

Third: due to the constant engaging in war that the empire went through the romans developed very specific battle tactics, and also a wide variety of weapons. i.e their columns would be devided into 4 lines: archers - privates - veterans - elite, which they would continously cycle throughout the battle. They would also use the ballisitic weapons of the time to wear down their weapons (as anyone would for that matter). I don't think I need to remind anyone of their 'testudo' formation (the shield-covered rectangular formation), which was used to great effect.

I can't say much about naval combat since I don't much about it.

And finally, I believe someone mentioned the Art of War. If you actually read it you'll see that it doesn't provide any tactics, only guidelines on how to be a good general.

you did state the advantages of roman army very well but you didnt state anything about han army, except for a brief stating of the art of war

at least compare the strength of roman and han army.
it is not like the han army has no good weapons or formation.

and how can all those you stated, pierce through the defence of just great wall alone ?
roman is known for the wrestling martial arts but that doesnt seem to be practical in war. What about martial arts?
I doubt the elite roman warrior is superior to han general in terms of martial arts and weapons.
have you study about ancient weapons of roman and han, as provided on one of the posts above?

[Kaze]

you did state the advantages of roman army very well but you didnt state anything about han army, except for a brief stating of the art of war
at least compare the strength of roman and han army.
it is not like the han army has no good weapons or formation.
and how can all those you stated, pierce through the defence of just great wall alone ?
roman is known for the wrestling martial arts but that doesnt seem to be practical in war. What about martial arts?
I doubt the elite roman warrior is superior to han general in terms of martial arts and weapons.
have you study about ancient weapons of roman and han, as provided on one of the posts above?

Let me disect that piece by piece.

First off: The Great Wall of China. If you would have done your research you would have known that it would actually have little to do with a roman/chinese conflict, since the wall is meant to protect the northern borders of the empire, mainly against the mongolian and manchurian tribes of the time, and was designed against cavalry, not infantry i.e. roman legioners. Also, the most probably route to China would be the Silk Road, one of the most important trade routes at the time, which goes nowhere near the Great Wall.

Secondly: Martial Arts would have little to do with a war. Battles are thought through other means. Or were you implying that all soldiers are as skiled as a dojo student that has been training since childhood? Individual battles have little to do with true combat - wars are won through the correct use of tactics and strategies.

And though it may surprise you, I did study Roman Warfare along with Roman History. More importantly, have you actually done any research? Because from what I read...

[SumpfFuchs]

Adding onto Kaze's comments you must take note that the roman army was for the most part trained to fight as a single war machine. The romans would in nearly every case create a wall of shields of which would be setup in different types of formations in order to suite the enemies weapons, tactics, and army itself. These formations consisted of several different more or less standard formations. Most putting into play the principle of the Romans in tightly packed formations of which would allow them to create a wall of shields with the gladius held low and in a thrusting position either between or below the shields. This would create a wall of shields in of which would allow the Romans to get close to their enemies and then use the Gladius in quick thrusting movements. An example being a wedge formation in of which the Roman legions would create a triangle like shape, and essentialy funnel the enemy into tightly packed areas, of which rendered longer swords useless, but at the same time brought the short gladius into prime play due to its small size. But this was in no way restricting, an example be found in the Battle between P. Cornelius Scipio's Son, of the same name, and the Carthaginian forces under Hasdrubal Gisgo at Ilipa. The night before, the Scipio general deployed his troops in a standard roman formation, but at dawn of the next morning he formed his troops with the legions on the wings and the Spaniard allies in the centre. "By the time that Hasdrubal realized that the Romans had changed their accustomed dispositions, it was too late. Scipio ordered a general advance. Next in what seems a very complicated manoeuvre, Scipio marched the legions off in a column away from the centre, which was ordered to advance very slowly towards the enemy. Scipio then had the two columns of legionaries turn at right angles towards the Carthaginians, and finaly deploy obliquely to cover the gaps between them and the still advancing centre." (Lawrence Kepple, The Making of the Roman Army, Pages 20-30) During this whole manoeuvre the Roman calvary was still on the outside flanks along with the lighter armed troops. The calvary and light armored troops then emerged and collapsed on the Carthaginian flanks and the Carthaginian line dissolved and ran back to their camp, of which was then abandoned. Also you must take into account that the Roman army was constantly training, drilling, and developing siege warfare.

@IQ, if you want a more indepth explanation on Roman military, I can go more in depth on it all.