Why the Romans would defeat the Han Chine

Firstly I would like to say that I know that Rome Vs Han has been discussed before in this forum, however I am new to this forum and this is something which I have been pondering in my mind for some time.

A Roman/Han encounter is something which would have been a great showdown of the times and one which i believe the Romans would have won. The first reason why I believe this is Roman army disipline. The Romans fought as a whole, it was a highly structured organisation that allowed it to dominate all other foes. It was divided into a century, then conhort and so on. Orders could be swiftly issued and swiftly followed allowing the Romans to adapt quickly to any new situation that should arise on the battle front. Although Chinese gave disipline great consideration, they never went as far as the Romans did with it. They didn't have a certain rigid structure such as the Romans did. If you  read the three kingdoms this is very evident, the Chinese armies of those times were very liable to become disorganised  because of a lose of momentum, or simply because they wanted some loot. (i.e In the three kingdoms, one trick comeonly used was to have ur army retreat while leaving horses, armour and such behind so as to disorganise the enemy forces, then striking them.)

For a Roman being a soldier was not just a momentary occupation, but often a long term career. Romans were career soliders, constantly training, constantly on campain. When they were not fighting the Romans would be drilling, marching, practicing to improve themselves on the battle field. The lowest rank of career in confucianist China is a soilder, here i dont mean a Lord(solider) but the average foot-soliders, archers etc who made the bulk of the army. Most likely most were peasents whos first nature was not fighting but farming or some other profession, becoming a solider when the need arised.

Although Romans lacked gunpowder, the Chinese of the Han period had yet to make this into a proficient weapon. Therefore it is likely that gunpowder wouldn't have played such an important role in a battle, as it could be used for scare tactics etc..

Lastly, Romans had more experience. If you look at the acient Han empire you should notice that although it ruled over a vast domain, most of this was occupied by Han Chinese, therefore much easier to rule. Whereas in contrast Roman lands were a vast multitude of different ethnic groups, one of the smallest part being actual Latin peoples from Italy.  Roman managed to conquer an area which has been for thousands of years a bastion of civilization, the mediteraian. This has been witnessed to some of the greatest empires of our time, thoughts and ideas have flowed freely around it too and therefore to conquer such an area would take military power much ahead of its time. The Han dynasty on the other hand didn't expand much out of its ethnically dominated Han territories. It may have fought many a border clash or so on, but the fact is that the Chinese were always the superior force. The Romans progressed from a city state to all conquering empire, whereas the Han Chinese already had this dominating position in their region.

Well these are my reasons, if you disagree pleaase enlighten me, i'd love to discuss it. Also forgive my grammer and spelling, cant be bothered to check it.

To be able to TAX a region you have to defeat the native army imperator Invictus.

Of course, if there was a war between the two it would be a simple campaign over say Iran.

There would be no million man Chinese army, too from home to supply. The Romans on the other hand are closer to their bases and could have a descent force in the field. But also keep in mind the Chinese sent an expedition of 40,000 men which reached the northern Caspian seas and perhaps even entered Ukraine. SO it is not entirely inconceivable for both armies to have tens of thousands of troops that could fight.

Of course I am not knowledgeable enough about the Han army to give an opinion on who would win. I�ve heard about their crossbow technology being 2^nd to none and could even pierce a Roman shield.

Anyway, breif war over Persia�Nothing more. Both sides would eventually leave the area anyway.

Chinese infantry did fight in group,in formations.Since spring and autumn period the musics and dances were formed so that everyone would move in formation --alot like a western "line" dance

I don't know what you mean by your comment about borders. The Han Empire was larger than the Roman Empire and geographically, had a more far-reaching sphere of influence on "barbarians" than did the Romans. The Han Empire was also more centralized and more economically dominant than the Romans.

The Romans did have a test agaisnt another Empire: the Parthian Empire in Persia. Even against a weakened Parthian Empire, the Romans ultimately failed achieve any lasting victory. The Romans fought sustained wars against the Persian and did not achieve anything in the end.

If the Romans couldn't achieve much permanent success against the Parthians in sustained war, please explain how they could against the Han Empire.

When I talk about Romans discipline, I talk about it after the tulis reforms, when the citizen army became a professional one.

Tuli's reforms?


Edited by Imperator Invictus - 01-Jun-2006 at 00:10

I don't see how your first paragraph is relevant to the discussion on military history, so moving on...

Rome against the Parthians, Rome was verging on civil war at this period, the parthians were a distant foe and one that took a back seat to domestic issues. I would say that they never really had the mindset of actually conquering the Parthians, all out. Caesar was going to campaign against them in revenge for crassus, but he was killed in the senate.

No, first of all, Rome was very serious about taking Parthia. At least 5 Emperors personally went on expeditions against Parthia (this was way after Caesar's time). Septimius Severus' campaign was noted to be especially expensive and almost wasteful of resources, if not for the plunder that he got.

Secondly, the Parthians were the ones in civil war, not the Romans. When the Emperor Trajan invaded Parthia, the Parthian civil conflicts was so bad that the Parthians couldn't even field an army for a pitched battle. Yet, ultimately, Trajan had to withdraw when he ran out of resources, proving that the Romans at the height could not sustain any long term projection of power abroad.

And of course, if the Parthians were a distant foe, then the Han must have been way distant.

sorry  Marian Reforms.

It would also be mistaken to say that Professional armies were better simply by being professional. In fact, as time went by, the Roman army became less and less professional and more reliant on auxillery units. Likewise, the Song Dynasty also used professional armies, but they were less efficient than the semi-professional armies of earlier dynasties.


Edited by Imperator Invictus - 01-Jun-2006 at 01:13

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus These "vs." scenarios have been discussed over and over again. Most of the arguments focus on microscopic elements that miss the big picture that history tells us. This is why: 1. First, when it comes to warfare between states, the matters of importance are finance, leaders, and most importantly - "efficiency," with the latter being how effective the state can project its power in terms of the resources spent. Weapons, and assumed army "dicipline" are byproducts of those three characteristics, and thus are secondary. 2. Weapons and tactics are adaptable as long as the state has sufficient resources and is efficient in using them. 3. People tend to cite military anecdotes while ignoring the big picture. One example is battle evidence, which throughout history is in general very poorly recorded. Even then, you can win all the battles and lose the war. Another example is the assumed "Roman Dicipline." People who keep raving about "Roman Dicipline" may not understand how undiciplined the Roman army was for at least half of Roman history. Furthermore, "dicipline" is a byproduct of efficiency in maintaining troops. 4. Most scenarios are grossly unrealistic and that is why we have this section called "Historical Amusement."

Yes, a good analogy of the original poster's thesis would be to the Confederacy and the Union. The Union had more gold, more troops, better logistics(railroad). However, the Confederacy had more discipline, better troops, and better leaders. Look who won the war.


Edited by Emperor Barbarossa - 01-Jun-2006 at 10:26

The Han Empire of China consisted of more than ethnic Han Chinese.

�Although Romans lacked gunpowder, the Chinese of the Han period had yet to make this into a proficient weapon. Therefore it is likely that gunpowder wouldn't have played such an important role in a battle, as it could be used for scare tactics etc..�

But the Romans did have their own type or form of �explosives��

�If you mean battles, less advanced enemies have defeated the Romans countless times. So obviously, the Chinese can defeat the Romans.�

Well look at the numbers buddy that one person put earlier. �The Roman suffered some of the lowest losses in comparison to their enemies ever known, only 885,000 killed in 9 centuries, while killing at least 15-25 million enemies.�

And the Han never faced an opponent as mighty as Rome or any one like them! Wile the Romans did!

 

�Most of the microscopic reasons that people like to discuss here had no relevace in history. Warfare was not centered on experience, nor was it centered on "dicipline." In fact, war is more about money, leaders, and social military efficiency than it is about weapons and dicipline.�

I think you are half wrong� With the rite weapons and equipment you can have the rite tactics and strategy, and less losses!

 

�Also I know that Chinese had many fighting formations, such as those created by the great Zhugeliang. But these were more tactical formations than a rigid structure deployed by the Romans.�

Well true but, with the rite weapons and equipment you can have the rite tactics and strategy, the tactics and strategy will be more affective as well!   Did the Zhugeliang had big shields, short swords, heavy armor, and throwing missiles ?

�Yes, a good analogy of the original poster's thesis would be to the Confederacy and the Union. The Union had more gold, more troops, better logistics(railroad). However, the Confederacy had more discipline, better troops, and better leaders. Look who won the war.�

And the Roman Empire had both advantages!!

But it was the repeating guns that made a rely big differents ending the war!

�The Han Empire of China consisted of more than ethnic Han Chinese.�

True but the Romans were more of a variety�

 

�I don't know what you mean by your comment about borders. The Han Empire was larger than the Roman Empire and geographically, had a more far-reaching sphere of influence on "barbarians" than did the Romans.�

No Rome did�

Edited by Praetorian - 09-Jun-2006 at 17:18

While all of us talking about establishing war between Rome and Han, our ancestors were trying to establish peace. After Ban Chao succeed his mission in destroying Huns, he sent Gan Ying to Da Qin (Rome) to establish good relation and trade with Rome (unfortunately Gan Ying only arrived at Constantinople and returned back to China). During the 3kingdoms era, Caesar Antonius sent his envoy from Rome and managed to reach China, establishing embassy in Wei Kingdom which was ruled by Cao Rui (Grandson of Cao Cao). The Chinese empire knew that by trading silk directly to Rome without passing the hand of Persia, they can earn more profit. The Roman empire also knew that by buying silk directly from the producer is a lot cheaper rather than buying it from distributor (Persia).