Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRoman Empire vs Han China

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 15>
Author
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Roman Empire vs Han China
    Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 02:03
"

 True i wrote BC instead of AD, guess i was in a hurry.But you wrote 8AD 

 Official chronology don't mention Wang Mang's usurpation. Check any official chinese dictionnary like Xinhuazidian. It's 23AD  genius"

Western Han ended in 8 AD. Every Chinese knows about it.

Official Chinese historical texts (both western and eastern) do confirm that. Check Ebrey (A British text on Chinese history)

Back to Top
Demetrios View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 20-Nov-2004
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 06:45

Please don't interfere in this debate. I respect warhead for his knowledge, not you. Don't forget your BS about Turks at the battle of Carrae or the Huns destroying the roman empire: you don't know anything about ancient history.

Go read some books.

Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 16:44

mm,as what I know, I believe china could won, reasons down there

1.weapons, in the Qin dynasty China already have a huge factory conditions to create weapons. the weapons they are using is better than Roman army. The main weapons is crossbow for Han and Qin dynasty, it is very strong but you have to use your leg to pull it, it can shoot 900 meters away.(from a Chinese book about crossbow)

2.Han dynasty has better cavalry than Romans, stirrup does not effect the cavalry in China because they use bow to shoot not the spears. And they have large numbers of the Cavalry.

3.Han dynasty can send more sodiers than Roman.

4.China have more better generals than Romans

that is my opinion, without effect of generals, China could won.

because Han and Roman both better to fight on the flat area, they both not good at mountain and desert

Back to Top
sephodwyrm View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 18:04

900 metres? That's really far. Do you have the title of the book?

I don't think Rome lacks officers. But in the Chinese system the officers tend to be promoted in merit. Though the generals obtained their posts sometimes through the effect of their sisters being imperial concubines...(heheh)

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 18:09
Yea Rome had some pretty heavy duty generals
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 18:15
I would've to say Romans. They had a warrior mentality.
Back to Top
lennel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 20:44
Dont forget it's important on where they fight.  China would be at a sizable disadvantage if it had to cross some waterways. 
Back to Top
sephodwyrm View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 21:00
The warrior mentality became broken as Rome became increasingly prosperous. Emperor Hadrian had to impose strict laws such as anyone with a missing thumb would get the chop (I read that from Rotten Romans which isn't a good source of Roman history) but it goes on to show how the "warrior mentality" declined. Young men would rather cut their thumbs off then join the legion.
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
Back to Top
Lannes View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2004 at 21:09

Originally posted by sephodwyrm

The warrior mentality became broken as Rome became increasingly prosperous. Emperor Hadrian had to impose strict laws such as anyone with a missing thumb would get the chop (I read that from Rotten Romans which isn't a good source of Roman history) but it goes on to show how the "warrior mentality" declined. Young men would rather cut their thumbs off then join the legion.

This isn't necessarily consistant.  It just took a true military man to inspire military entry and loyalty while in the military(take for example Septimius Severus and the raising of his legions).



Edited by Lannes
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 01:42

Warrior mentality?

 

Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 01:54
"

Please don't interfere in this debate. I respect warhead for his knowledge, not you. Don't forget your BS about Turks at the battle of Carrae or the Huns destroying the roman empire: you don't know anything about ancient history.

Go read some books."

What are you talking about?

I was supporting warhead on this. We both know that western Han ended in 8 AD and someone said otherwise. If you agree with warhead on this, you also agree with me. We both have the same thoughts on this issue.

The Huns did destroy the western Roman empire.

The Romans did get defeated in the battle of Carrae.

Please read carefully before you post anything. Else you wouldn't look too wise.

I also suggest you read some history and English books. Trust me, it can improve your ability to comprehend.



Edited by coolstorm
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 09:18

The Huns did not destroy the Roman Empire.

The Romans and the Visigoths beat the Huns in 451 CE.

The deterioration of the Western Roman Empire (and most other large empires) was not as simplistic as that.

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Romano Nero View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 10:29
Those topics are quite popular around here, I see.  Too bad every side can see only its own, limited, version of "truth"...
Back to Top
sephodwyrm View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 12:42

However, I am more inclined towards a Chinese victory over the Romans.

Call that my own limited version of truth. Our job is to provide more pointers so that a more logical conclusion can be drawn from the factual arguments.

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 01:08
Originally posted by Romano Nero

Those topics are quite popular around here, I see.  Too bad every side can see only its own, limited, version of "truth"...


This and the "Samurai vs. Knight" topics
Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 09:52

The Romans did not beat Huns,

it is Western Guals defeat Eastern Gauls that is right, it is nothing about the Huns in Nothern of China because they becomes the same as European, also When Huns move to the west they are also very weak than the huge empire they had created in nothern of China. so even the weak huns can defeat weak Rome, than China can defeat strong Hun, that means China still can defeat strong Rome.

Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 09:56
Originally posted by sephodwyrm

900 metres? That's really far. Do you have the title of the book?

I don't think Rome lacks officers. But in the Chinese system the officers tend to be promoted in merit. Though the generals obtained their posts sometimes through the effect of their sisters being imperial concubines...(heheh)

I do not know how to translate the title of that book, but that general you talking about is Wei Qing. That is not because he marry with emperor's sister and her sister marryt with the emperor. He was very poor, their parents had been killed by Huns, so he join the army of China, and did his duty, after that he marry with emperor's sister. That means Every step he did is by himself.

Back to Top
lennel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 11:47

"even the weak huns can defeat weak Rome, "........

were 5th century huns weaker relative to the huns before?

Again to say china beat hun, hun beat rome.....china beats rome is far too simplistic and how exactly did hun beat Rome?

Personally I feel that Rome at its peak was far better administratively than Han.  Han afterall were able basically to rule Chinese(though more diverse than many think) while Rome was able to sucessfully govern from Britain to the Middle East between which is obviously a more diverses bunch.  Secondly Rome was able to quickly adapt and was versatile at picking up foreign ability and utilizing it. 

Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 14:12
Originally posted by coolstorm

"

Please don't interfere in this debate. I respect warhead for his knowledge, not you. Don't forget your BS about Turks at the battle of Carrae or the Huns destroying the roman empire: you don't know anything about ancient history.

Go read some books."

What are you talking about?

I was supporting warhead on this. We both know that western Han ended in 8 AD and someone said otherwise. If you agree with warhead on this, you also agree with me. We both have the same thoughts on this issue.

The Huns did destroy the western Roman empire.

The Romans did get defeated in the battle of Carrae.

Please read carefully before you post anything. Else you wouldn't look too wise.

I also suggest you read some history and English books. Trust me, it can improve your ability to comprehend.

I guess you make a mistake, it is Pathia beat Rome in battle of Carrae, not Turks.



Edited by ChineseManchurian
Back to Top
ChineseManchurian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 14:25
Originally posted by lennel

"even the weak huns can defeat weak Rome, "........

were 5th century huns weaker relative to the huns before?

Again to say china beat hun, hun beat rome.....china beats rome is far too simplistic and how exactly did hun beat Rome?

Personally I feel that Rome at its peak was far better administratively than Han.  Han afterall were able basically to rule Chinese(though more diverse than many think) while Rome was able to sucessfully govern from Britain to the Middle East between which is obviously a more diverses bunch.  Secondly Rome was able to quickly adapt and was versatile at picking up foreign ability and utilizing it. 

Chinese can unify all nations into China, but Roman only can rule them, they still will rebel, so what you think about that?

5th Huns are weaked so much, they only left like 80000men, they start to have infntry because they can't find more horse. their main group of sodiers are babarians such as Gaul and Germans, so Hun can not say as a strong country. also in the battle of I forget), Attilas send half million of men, most of them are babarians, also Rome almost with no fight win the battle, because West gauls already crushed other babarians...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 15>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.