Han VS Rome

Originally posted by Ikki Originally posted by conon394 Ikki I would not underestimate the Republic vs. the Principate. The Republic was extremely resilient and able to sustain staggering casualties; the Principate in contrast was more brittle.  It also worth pointing out the Republic in its final civil wars fielded and sustained far larger armies and navies than the Principate ever. Yes, a good general can do a good work, and the Republic was very hard, but the starting point is unfavourable for the romans in the battlefields, because they don't used archers and cavalry. If the general is good, i repeat, this is not a problem, after the defeat of Carrhae a roman army without auxiliars, only legionnaries defeat three times to a parthian army. It might be better to stop this and all go to China History Forum to read the, endless, Rome vs Han forum there..... It's very, very, very loooooooonnnnnnnngggggggggg !!!!!!!!! Not finished yet???? muahahaha that post began...when? two years ago? About that post, i have very clear about this question: the main argument of the chinese are that the crossbow can pierce the roman armour; anyother can be claimed by the romans (movility, siege weapons, tactics...) Is impossible read about a "modelic" chinese han army, only differents and not very accurate examples: 100 thousand cavalry+100 thousand infantry; 1/3 polearms, 1/3 crossbow, 1/3 archers and isn't sure. Now we go with a battle between romans and chinese, if we think both 100.000 men Romans (more or less, based on the roman campaign in Dacia, if the tactical situation is good, can deploy the siege machine against the enemies, we know that they did) 50.000 heavy infantry 20.000 shock auxiliar infantry, mainly spearmen 15.000 archers 15.000 cavalry (spear and bow) Chinese 40.000? horse archers 10.000? shock cavalry 20.000 crossbow 15.000 archers 15.000 polearms The chinese must prevent a close combat if they don't want be crushed, the chinese cavalry surely will attack by the flanks, in the battle of Tapae the romans fought in fhe flanks with the auxiliars (was attacked by sarmathian cavalry too) and in the campaign of Corbulo in Armenia they could resist the attack of the parthian cavalry puttin the legions on the flanks supported by archers, and the cavalry in the rearguard. Just, we have to the legions advancing against the enemy infantry (archers and crossbow in the flanks, preventing cavalry charge, changes for this what if?), here the chinese say that the crossbow can pierce the shield and the roman armour, and destroy the legions. But i have very clear one thing: the entire firepower of the professional armies of the napoleonic wars, couldn't stop the charge of UNARMORED colums. Is fantasy, impossible, that the firepower of crossbow and archer could stop in 300m the attack of 50.000 armored men, impossible; many times these guys put the example of Carrhae, yes, but in Carrhae the enemy shot their arrows from horses, and the infantry couldn't charge against their; the chinese infantry can't run away without lose the formation, a quick withdraw can be the chaos, and the final. Conclusion:  The main problem, we don't know very well the (real and proved) tactics of the chinese army. Again, this is a question for generals, with advantage for the roman army, more balanced (if we talk about Principate, of course) bye

Chinese tactics and formations can vary depending on the general. Sun Zhi's Arts of Wars list a lot of details on Chinese war tactics. Besides, Chinese soldiers are organized into different levels of groups, companies, with sub commanders, higher level commanders etc, making the whole army more organized. Also, the Chinese probably would have more than 100,000 men.

Han Chinese soldiers also shot differently from the West (including Central Asian, Arabs, and Europeans). While armies from the "Western region" tended to shoot altogether at a time and then charge, leaving time for enemies to approach. Chinese soldiers shoot by rolls (e.g. the first roll shoots, and then reloads, while the first rolls reloads, the second roll shoots, and then while the second roll reloads, the third roll shoots, and then while the third roll reloads, the first roll shoots again, making the attacks continue without pause). Enemy calvary and infantrymen could hardly approach unless they significantly outnumbered the Chinese, which wasn't likely to happen.

that's how they took down the huns and various central asian tribes.

beside, Chinese infantry actually made up the largest portion of the army in term of number. In the battle of "northern desert" against the Huns, Emperor Han Wudi mobilized 500,000 infantrymen and 200,000 calvary. While the calvary served as the main attack force, the 500,000 infantrymen provided support and assistance. A handheld crossbow was issued to every soldier regardless of their position during the Han period.

the practice of imperial confucianism actually created a sense of social stability in the han dynasty unmatched in the west and roman empire. citizens of the han were loyal to the emperor like the japanese to their emperor during ww2.

"Conclusion:  The main problem, we don't know very well the (real and proved) tactics of the chinese army. "

Irregardless of tactics, Han has a much greater strategic advantage in its use of horsepower and wealth.

Chinese crossbow is superior to medieval european crossbow ,china had cast iron which wasnt invented till 1400;s in europe to produce mass cast trigger system for crossbow triggers,romans had a crossbow but alot inferior to even normal bows.

Where is the proof that roman infantry is superior to chinese infantry ,except all the hype by western historians glorifying there past.

A chinese formation would ripp apart a legion due to the slowness of a legions attack due to its heavy nature with lots of armour, a crossbow can penetrate all armours , and would undoubltely nuetrillaze the roman sheild and pila combo which worked well vs the almost static phalanxe and the unorganized barbarians footsoldiers.

whilst the han conquered the Xiongnu which eventually pushed a weaker steppe tribe to Hungary and forced its tribes to resort to less horsemen and more infantry as shown in Chalon 451ad where the roman empire was stretched by the huns .

so the han indirectly caused the downfall of rome now tell that to your classics teacher and watch him cry

True, the Hun nation by the time of Chalons was a federation of many ethnicities, including Franks and Ostrogoths.  However, contrary to popular paintings, Attila the Hun had Asiatic features, as described by Roman emissaries of the time.