Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
mico5bei
Samurai
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Why the Romans would defeat the Han Chine Posted: 31-May-2006 at 09:05 |
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.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 12:01 |
You give a lot of reasons, but you failed to define what "win" is.
If you mean battles, less advanced enemies have
defeated the Romans countless times. So obviously, the Chinese can
defeat the Romans.
If you mean wars, it's obvious that both the Romans and Han Chinese failed to expand beyond their natural borders.
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.
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 31-May-2006 at 12:03
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 12:25 |
To be able to TAX a region you have to defeat the native army imperator Invictus.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 12:29 |
Well, but had the Chinese succumbed... Rome was too far. Just think of the food the army had needed. And the Army had to be large...
Plus, Rome had it's own enemies and couldn't fool around... FIrstly it mgiht have conquered India.
|
|
Loknar
Colonel
Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 14:18 |
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. Ive heard about their crossbow technology being 2nd to none and could even pierce a Roman shield.
Anyway, breif war over PersiaNothing more. Both sides would eventually leave the area anyway.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 20:16 |
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."
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 31-May-2006 at 20:16
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 22:54 |
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
Of course they quality of troops varied.And in Three kingdoms times there were part time soldiers recruited from peasentry who could be lured with "gifts"
|
|
mico5bei
Samurai
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-May-2006 at 23:42 |
What I mean by Romans Vs Han is a fantasy scenerio in which both
empires would meet each other in sustained combat. I realize that this
could never have happened because of the distance between the two
empires. I still beilive that at both their heights of power, Rome
would have been the victor.
Rome did move beyond its natural borders, that is simply
unquestionable. The Han Chinese didn't, theyre controlled areas were
populated by Han Chinese.
Of course war is mostly about Money, leadership.. however every group
has its good or its bad, both the Han and the Romans had efficient
financial capabilities to carry out a sustained war.
When I talk about Romans discipline, I talk about it after the tulis
reforms, when the citizen army became a professional one. You can't
ignor the fact that the Han Chinese lacked this.
Although this is in essence a ridiculous scenerio and one that is
almost impossible to predict seeing the unpredictablity of military
warfare. In a struggle with even supplies of money, equally capable
leadership, I still belive Romans would still have come out on top for
the various reasons ive listed above.
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.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 00:05 |
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
|
|
mico5bei
Samurai
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 00:27 |
The Han empire was indeed great, but your forgetting that size doesn't
essential matter when the population is all of the same dominent
ethnicity, Han Chinese. For example, In modern communist China in order
to control Tibet and border regions, they are shipping in huge amounts
of Han Chinese to Change the loyalty of the local populous. Now Han
Chinese are the dominent, tibetans the minority, therefore they can be
assured of a long hold in tibet. Chinas ancient Han empire was
basically of one make up. How many ethnic groups resided under Romes
boundarys? It is always easier to dominate and control an area which is
essential of the same people.
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.
sorry Marian Reforms.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 01:12 |
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.
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
|
|
mico5bei
Samurai
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 131
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 02:22 |
Good points. Obviously your much more versed in history that I am, well thanks for the insite.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 06:38 |
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
|
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 19:16 |
Chines infantry can attack in formation and also use sheild walls.Romans use sheild walls and have strong armour which one is better?
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 03:27 |
The Han Empire of China consisted of more than ethnic Han Chinese.
Among those within the borders and serving in the military were Wuhuan people who provided excellent cavalry.
You could find fools from both sides who'd mess things up.
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 18:17 |
Why not?
|
|
Praetorian
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 190
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 17:10 |
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
|
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris
--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.
"game over!! man game over!!"
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 05:14 |
This is getting pathetic again. We are all projecting who will win and who is superior based on our deep set views and convictions, largely influenced by our backgrounds.
Those who argue for Rome will always say Rome is better, and come up with "evidence" that Rome was invincible. Not coincidently, this camp is mostly made of those who see the United States as a modern day Rome.
Those who argure for Han will always say Han is as good, if not better, than Rome, and invent "evidence" in support of their assertions. A more far-eastern background is seen in most forumers in this camp.
In summary, the word battle between Han and Rome in the thread is nothing more than a reflection of national, ethnic, cultural, and personal background.
To bring a football analogy, this is an argument of Pele vs. Maradona.
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Archaon
Immortal Guard
Joined: 22-Jun-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 21:59 |
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).
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 11:55 |
Originally posted by poirot
This is getting pathetic again. We are all projecting who will win and who is superior based on our deep set views and convictions, largely influenced by our backgrounds.
Those who argue for Rome will always say Rome is better, and come up with "evidence" that Rome was invincible. Not coincidently, this camp is mostly made of those who see the United States as a modern day Rome.
Those who argure for Han will always say Han is as good, if not better, than Rome, and invent "evidence" in support of their assertions. A more far-eastern background is seen in most forumers in this camp.
In summary, the word battle between Han and Rome in the thread is nothing more than a reflection of national, ethnic, cultural, and personal background.
To bring a football analogy, this is an argument of Pele vs. Maradona.
|
Got it, of course many debates on here feature the same groups over and over again....
|
|
|