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 Against China

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Roman Empire Against China
    Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 22:33

hey I have this topic in mind if the two greatest empire in the known world fought who will win give some opinions since in Asia China is the most powerful force and in Europe Rome had been undefeated whos goin to win

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: 13-Dec-2004 at 22:36
No! Not this again!
Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 457
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 22:38
Well, if the battle was equadistance from the Roman Empire and China, meaning that the logistical difficulties were similar, then I would bet on a Roman victory.  However, my knowledge of China's Han military is minimal, and of what I read is fairly strong - however, I believe that a 3rd Century Roman Legion Army could defeat a Han army... perhaps- they both seem to be in some kind of political turmoil during this period, so that wouldn't give an advantage to either of them.

However, if it was a 1st Century Roman Army against a 1st Century Chinese Army, hands down, Rome... I believe.
Back to Top
babyblue View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2004 at 06:06

....zzzZZZZZzzzzzzz.......

        zzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzZZZZZZzzzZ.....

   hey jaangoon what's the time?

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: 14-Dec-2004 at 07:52

"Well, if the battle was equadistance from the Roman Empire and China, meaning that the logistical difficulties were similar, then I would bet on a Roman victory.  However, my knowledge of China's Han military is minimal, and of what I read is fairly strong - however, I believe that a 3rd Century Roman Legion Army could defeat a Han army... perhaps- they both seem to be in some kind of political turmoil during this period, so that wouldn't give an advantage to either of them.

However, if it was a 1st Century Roman Army against a 1st Century Chinese Army, hands down, Rome... I believe."

Well, your knowledge on a Han army is really minimal. A little tutorial might help:

"Not only was the Han empire larger and exert a greater political sphere, its weapon manufacture due to the blast furnace and beussemer process of iron production. The replacement of the bloom furnace with the blast furnace, can increase iron production by 15 folds, enabling the Han to easily outproduce the Romans in weaponry ion both quality and quantity. The Han were able to manufacture superior tools, that the more primitive European metallurgy was incapable of producing, which led to a substantial advance in productivity throughout the entire economy. As early as the Third Century B.C., the state of Qin appointed government officials to supervise the iron industry, and penalize manufacturers who produced substandard products. The Han Dynasty nationalized all cast-iron manufacture in 119 B.C. Around that time, there were 46 imperial Iron Casting Bureaus throughout the country, with government officials insuring that cast-iron tools were widely available. This included cast-iron plowshares, iron hoes, iron knives, axes, chisels, saws and awls, cast-iron pots, and even toys. 
In addition to this is the Han's vastly superior agricultural advances such as turn-plough with curved iron mould-board, the seed drill and the horse-shoe, this in addition with the easy producing millet enable the Han to outproduce the West in agriculture by 4-8times with the same amount of input. This enable the Han to feed much larger armies on a scale unseen in the classical west which could only put on limited armys on the field. All these easily show the power of the Eastern Han during its height a clear cut greater power.

The Chinese also developed methods for the manufacture of steel that were only matched in the West, in the recent period. The characteristics of iron alloys are related to the carbon content. Cast iron generally has a high carbon content, which makes it strong, but brittle. Steel, which is an alloy of iron with a low carbon content, is strong and more durable. The use of steel in agricultural implements was introduced, on a wide scale, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). This led to a further improvement in productivity.

In the Second Century B.C., the Chinese developed what became known in the West as the Bessemer process. They developed a method for converting cast iron into steel, by blowing air on the molten metal, which reduced the carbon content. In 1845, William Kelly brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky, and learned this method from them, for which he received an American patent. However, he went bankrupt, and his claims were made over to the German, Bessemer, who had also developed a similar process.

Pilum is a primitive weapon for limitd throwing power. With the presense of crossbow, their is noneed for weapons of inferior power. As for pavises, the warring state shield industry was highly advanced, the shields are made in fine hide along with maximu care, the rules were stric, if rat bitten marks were found, the shield carers are severely punished. Shields are made through careful calculation of the time in drying the wood and hide to maximize defense power. And designed in such shape to deflect missiles.

Even during early Han, all soldiers no matter what quality were provided with crossbows and their towards the end of the era, the blast furnace allowed the vast abundant production of high quality steel weapons accessable to all troops.

Many historians in the past think that the "hundreds of thousand" of army in the warring states are exaggerations and only thousands of troops are gathered since the contemporary western armies could only have several ten thousand in most battles. However not long ago, study of chinese agriculture shows that this was possible and the sources recorded probably the truth. Chinese agriculture are far more developed than in any other place. Until the 17th century, productivity in European agriculture was severely limited by the inefficiency of ploughing, sowing, and hoeing methods. The 17th to 19th centuries saw a transformation of North European agricultural technology, basedon the development of the turn-plough with curved iron mould-board, the seed drill and the horse-shoe, all of which has been around in the central plain at least as early as the western Han. Jethro Hull was the first European explicitly to formulate this integral system of 'horse hoeing husbandry' in 1731, yet an agricultural system incorporating all the same very elements had existed in North China since Han times, while individual elementsof the system were to be found in several other parts of East Asia. The multi harvest system in China is also far ahead for its time. The Chinese plow concentrated the force much more efficiently on the sharp blade of the plow, with the mould-board designed to turn the soil with a minimum of drag. With the European plow, the entire straight wooden mould-board pushed against the soil. Therefore, the Chinese plow achieved a far higher energy-flux density, and accomplished far more work with far less effort. Chinese plows were so efficient, that they required only one or two animals to pull them. Four, six, or even eight draft animals were needed to pull the inefficient European plow. The Chinese plow was vastly more efficient than the European plow, both per worker and per unit of energy used. As LaRouche states, ``This difference is Leibniz's definition of the subject matter of technology.'' This method was so inefficient that most of the seeds never germinated to produce a crop. The plants also grew up in a disorganized mess. Weeding the fields was impossible, so the plants were left to compete with the weeds until harvesting season. This considerably reduced the crop. In Europe, it was often necessary to save one-half of the harvest to use as seeds the next year.

By no later than the Sixth Century B.C., the Chinese adopted the practice of growing crops in evenly spaced rows, and using a hoe to remove the weeds. ``Master Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals,'' states ``If the crops are grown in rows they will mature rapidly because they will not interfere with each other's growth.

At first, the seeds were placed by hand in furrows, in a ridge-and-furrow pattern. Around the Second Century B.C., the Chinese introduced the seed drill, which became almost universally used in northern China. This device consisted of small plows that cut small furroughs in the ground, a mechanism that released the seeds, evenly spaced into these furrows, and a brush or roller that covered the seeds with dirt. The seed drill could be adjusted for different types of soil and seeds. This method of planting was so much more efficient than sowing the seed by scattering it, that it could achieve an efficiency 10 or even 30 times greater.

It should be easy to see that the difference in productivity between Chinese and European agriculture was dramatic. The area of land that could be brought under cultivation in Europe was constricted by inferior technology, and by the need to leave more land as pasture to feed the extra draft animals. Obviously, we are comparing two large areas, over a long period of time. However, Chinese yields have been estimated at two, five, or even ten times higher than yields in Europe, at various times. China's higher yields allowed for an increased population density, and also for an increased division of labor, as we will see below.

Eventually these technologies were transmitted to Europe, which led to a large increase in agricultural production. European travelers were greatly impressed with the wealth of China, and the productivity of its agriculture. Leibniz and others actively sought out information on Chinese science, industry and agriculture from Europeans who traveled to China.

The Chinese plow and seed drill were introduced into Europe during the 17th Century, and gradually adopted throughout Europe. Growing crops in rows was championed by British agricultural reformer, Jethro Tull, who printed a treatise in 1731, to persuade farmers to adopt what he called ``horse-hoeing husbandry.'' Tull published arguments similar to those used 2000 years earlier in China. Tull also developed one of the first successful European seed drills.

In comparison, historians found that in China during the Qin, one pound of seed could have 10 times the amount of harvest in return, while in contemporary classical Europe that same amount of seed could only have 2.5 amount of harvest in return. In another word, Qin could have 4 times the amount of harvest with the same amount of seed put into the agriculture. This enable the Qin to feed a much larger army. All these advances in agricultuer undoubly created a increase in living standard and the living standard in the central plain at this time was greatly more than that of Europe." --- warhead

Therefore, attacking China with a Roman force is not much different from a cat attacking a tiger.



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


Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2004 at 08:12

Originally posted by DuxPimpJuice

Well, if the battle was equadistance from the Roman Empire and China, meaning that the logistical difficulties were similar, then I would bet on a Roman victory.  However, my knowledge of China's Han military is minimal, and of what I read is fairly strong - however, I believe that a 3rd Century Roman Legion Army could defeat a Han army... perhaps- they both seem to be in some kind of political turmoil during this period, so that wouldn't give an advantage to either of them.

However, if it was a 1st Century Roman Army against a 1st Century Chinese Army, hands down, Rome... I believe.

definetely wrong, Hanb dynasty dissapeared from history in 2nd century. And Roman army had been defeat by the Gauls and Franks In third century in a battle(I forget the name of the battle, it dominated the cavalry were leader in the Europe for a thousand years).

From what I know, war betwwen two empire Chinese would won on land, not on the ocean. China have the better ships but they did not use it in war.

Also, China have a large base than Rome. China could lose a battle even lost their capital they still can fight but Rome can't because they can not use Gaul as their base such as Carthage and Greek. so If Rome been defeated in Italy it will be destroyed. Even China lose half of lands they still can fight.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2004 at 11:54
closed......
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

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 0.047 seconds.