Rome by far had the best army of all time because of its organization and discipline and the fact that from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D. it domanated three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa).                    

Yes Augustus mad Rome a super power when he had to make a peace with Phraates after the disgraceful defeat of Mark Antony in Battle of Phraaspa, as you know Mark Antony began a campaign against the Parthians in 33 BC. His army numbered more than 120,000 men, including no less than forty thousand cavalry whenas Phraates could collect only thirty thousand men. Roman general was defeated in this battle definitely and had to retreat after losing fifty thousand of his best troops.

It also said that the return of the Roman standards captured by Orordes in the more disgraceful Battle of Carrhae (53 BC) was a victory celebrated by Rome with numerous honors for Augustus.

 Rome would woop any asian army in its path during the time of Augustus.

At some point they had a great use of chariots (till 3-2 century B.C. before cavalry was introduced). About 3 men were on the chariot - driver (or however it's named), an axe yeilder or a spearman and bowman. Later chu-ko-nu made quite an impact because 10 arrows could be reloaded faster than a regular bowman would do that. And still the chinese warfare counts much on archery, and Romans would have difficulty countering it. A constant turtle formation is probably going to work, yet the units wouldn't see a charging melee army all that well, don't know it's all a fantasy poll anyway - may be it's best solved in pc games (Rise of nations, Empire Earth II).

 There to weak

Did any European army ever defeat a Roman army in a pitched battle from 150BC - 150AD?

Riiight.

About as fair as the users on a Roman History Forum I visit were being when they came up their Rome vs Han scenario.

Perhaps more consideration should be made to WHEN the various armies are compared because their fighting power changed over the course of time.  This is an important consideration if real accuracy is being sought.  The Roman military did finally grow static and crumble.  So, it was not a very good fighting machine after it became Christianized.  Christians were not then particularly fierce fighters!

Also, the Macedonian army was far superior to the Persian army but only because by then the Persion civilization was in decline.  The Chinese military machine underwent similar gyrations or cycles with each dynasty.  Its strength depended upon the condition of the Chinese faith and society at the time.  When a society becomes corrupt, the army draws upon mercenaries and compulsion.  It fills with deadbeats and dropouts.  It becomes a big mass of fighters who are quick to find a reason to retreat.    Frankly, to me it is far more interesting to analyze this and why armies change in strengh than it is just to say, arbitrarily, that one was better than the other.

When this is all taken into consideration, it might tell us something out our own military future . . .

charles

http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com - http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

  Ok there is a chance that the Han could have beaten the Romans, but still the Romans were not weak like how the people at the Chinese forum portray them, they are a war machine that could beat a Chinese army but they probably couldent march all the way to China and just conquer it because of Parthia and the other central asian cultures. Rome still had more discipline and organization then the Chinese. Also I know that the Han dident just have archers they also were very good Cavalry men.

Perhaps hiring phallanx units as well, that would put a stop to most calvary charges in some areas.

co-ordinated units of missile cavalry supported by light cavalry could disperse phallanx.

use 1/4 of fast shooters from front, flank with 3/4 and rain arrows, keep light cavalry 50 yards hidden behind, if enemy cavalry charges, disperse and make room for light cavalry to hit enemy cavalry.

The best army Arminious army of totoun they cruhed roman army led by Varous in Germania 9 A.D .

Hannibal too becmame very close to destroy rome but this is the fate saved rome when Nero found  letter between Hasdrobal and Hannibal by it he know the tactic of Hamlecar's  sons.

That was hundreds of years before Roman Empire, at the time of the Roman Empire, they weren't very strong. Weren't some of Mesopotamia in the Selucid Empires hands?

Hey ramin jan,picture jadide man chetore?

�� ��� ��ی �����

wat is it?

In my opinion a properly lead Khosro Parviz era Sassani army would pwn.

In fact, all of it fell into Seleukid hands in the 3rd C. BC.

That was hundreds of years before Roman Empire, at the time of the Roman Empire, they weren't very strong. Weren't some of Mesopotamia in the Selucid Empires hands?

[/QUOTE]

I know that before hundred years but Egypt too in that time under potelomy dynaty .where is your point .

This topic about all ancient era is it or not?

I know that before hundred years but Egypt too in that time under potelomy dynaty .where is your point .

This topic about all ancient era is it or not?

[/QUOTE]

Well because Mesopotamian armies 200-300 years earlier would be smashed by the Roman armies. Someone said they were too weak, and in truth, they could not beat out a well lead Roman Army.

The armies of Mesopatamia were to weak because there equipment and organization was ancient by the time of Rome.

Rome was at its peak at the time of Caesar.

well maybe this "best army of the world" has not yet come.

I was skeptical about the claim that the Han army had lasted through to the present time. Not being immediately familiar with the intricacies of Chinese history - I consulted the pages at the University of Maryland http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history - http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history put together by Leon Poon.

From his pages, where he specifically distinguishes between the Han people and the Han dynasty: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html - http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html#han , he says, "The Han dynasty, after which the members of the ethnic majority in China, the "people of Han," are named, was notable also for its military prowess" he goes on to say " The Han rulers, however, were unable to adjust to what centralization had wrought: a growing population, increasing wealth and resultant financial difficulties and rivalries, and ever-more complex political institutions. Riddled with the corruption characteristic of the dynastic cycle, by A.D. 220 the Han Empire collapsed."

The Minnesota State University Museum site concurred: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/timeline.html - http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/timeline.html

As did Paul Halsall on the Brooklyn College City University of New York pages: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.html - http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.h tml

For further reading - these resource pages are very good: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html - http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/eastasiasbook.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/eastasiasbook.html#I mperial%20China

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/chinbib.html - http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/chinbib.html

Well prove it Scipio.

so I expect you to say that Scipio is better.

Charles Brough brings up a very good point.  It seem most if not all ancient armys become week for one reason or another.  I know alot about  the Achamanid Empire (Persian Empire).  Under there original leader Cyrus the Great almost all the troops were trained to be soldiers begining at a very young age and starting there military careers at about 20 and ending in mid 40's or even latter.  This continued for a few more kings (Cambysus,Darius the Great,Xerxes,Artaxarus).  After these kings though the Persians begain relying heavily on levies from all over the empire who were very untrained and like charles said would run away from a battle for many reasons (which it seems they did at Guagamala).  So i think Rome vs China debate can be meaningless.

how can it be meaning less. just because they get weak at different periods.

I prefer Chinese, becouse they had more Strategicly Smarter Generals, They had more Mauneurement and they had a good philosophy, That would made them to destroy any army of Ancient Times.

They had Paper armpor which was more effective than Roman Iron, They had a bow which was between longbow and "Short bow"(Asian bow) which destroyed many beautiful armies of Huns and Turks and Mongols, and offcource could destroy Roman tooo

That is mAnd also, To train from less age, it was in many ancient states as Sparta, Huns (which founded 221 b.c.), Celts-Gauls, Etruscians and so on

Becouse the mean of life in that times was a Warfare, that is not hard to understand.

How were Greeks more affective then the Romans hahahahhaha.

 It was easy for a few maniples to detach from a legion and attempt a flanking manoeuvre on a formation such as the phlaanx, which is what I believe happened at Cynoscephalae in 197bc when Philip of Macedon's army was decisively defeated.

 I think probably a better example of the superiority of the legion to the phalanx than my previous example of Magnesia.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html - http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html

 I don't think anybody can strongly dispute the fact that the legion was overall superior to the phalanx. My example shows the strength of the phalanx when facing an army head on and also its fatal weaknesses.

ok, i meant, they did not live in the same time when both had their highest military.

When we see both Peloponnes and Persian wars, we see that, with very few casaulties they defeated persians (compearing in number)

but Rome, even after MArius, (not battles with germans), in many battles lost more than greeks phalanks of hoplites did

Yeah, thats because the Romans of the Late Republic were on the offensive and some times you got to lose, but you continue to fight to win and thats whats important. Plus the greeks lost plenty of battles to.

yeah, I know

but Romans were late and more developed technology and strategy, of cource

 Youve been given many examples of Roman armies defeating often larger armies even Greeks and coming through with few casualties.

 If we believe the Roman casualties at Cynoscephalae which is 700 to over 13,000 Macedonians killed or captured, then you see quite conclusively the superiority of Romes legionary system over the Greek phalanx. Even if Roman casualties were actually higher the fact remains a phalanx army was decisively defeated by a legionary army on the offensive.

 The chief weaknesses of the phalanx were exposed in this battle and the big strengths of the legion were shown quite conclusively.

 It is a

Pardon me Heraclius but your assumption is not true. The Macedonian's army defeat in Cynoscephalae is charged mostly on the poor management of Philip V who commited one serious and decisive mistake, instead of anything else.

In Cynoscephalae, Philip V attacked dissimilar. Meaning while the right Macedonian wing and Centre were together, the left Macedonian wing was still marching as undisciplined divisions.  Romans made use of this gap with result this to be the crucial point of Macedonian defeat.

 I recognise a reason why this battle went Romes way is due to a failing by Philip.

 However, I was right when I said the chief weaknesses and strengths were displayed.

 The phalanx is formidable when taken head on even the legion is going to struggle against a wall of spears, however the rigidity of the phalanx is a major weakness which made the fact a group of maniples detached on the Roman right flank and hit the Macedonian centre in the rear even more catastrophic. As there is no effective defence a phalanx formation can offer when attacked from the rear, its simply not possible or atleast practical for the entire formation like that to change direction when heavily engaged in combat.

 The fact the Macedonian left was disorganised obviously contriubuted to this, but whereas the legion is more than capable of resisting attacks from the flanks by manoeuvring to face another direction the phalanx is almost totally helpless.

Macrinus

Marcus Crasses+40 000 roman

Gordian+40 000 roman

Philip Africanus+70 000 roman

Decius

Valerian+40 000 roman

Carus

Julian+60 000 roman

Valens+45 000 roman

VAlentinian

Are name of Great Roman Generals which died in the hand of Goths and Persians

So, dont say that roman were greater than Greeks, and they surely were late

The Highest peak of Greece is 5th century b.c. and Alexander

Highest peak of Rome is 1 b.c.-3 a.d.

There more than 300 years difference

 I don't see what point your trying to make Janissary, that armies get defeated?

 We didnt need you to tell us that, its a simple fact armies lose sometimes, do you want me to list all the Persian defeats? All that'd prove is the undeniable fact that no army is invincable, big deal.

 What do battles against Persia and the Goths have to do in a contest between Romans and Greeks? They have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

 Anyway Valentinian I didnt die in battle nor did Valentinian the II or III, none of the 3 Gordian Emperors were killed by Goths or Persians, who on earth is Philip Africanus? do you mean Philip the Arab? he was killed in battle against Decius anyway. Julian the Apostate was indeed killed in battle, but his army was not destroyed and later on proclaimed Jovian Emperor.

 Valerian was captured through deception by Shapur, Valerian may have even narrowly won the battle of Edessa (highly debatable), however plague ravaged his army and forced him to negotiate with the Persians for peace. Shapur captured him through deceit. Macrinus was an Emperor who was defeated in battle against some guy called Gannys and then executed, neither Goths or Persians executed him.

 Dare I even mention the fact Varus was not a "great" Roman general, Valens was undoubtedly killed at Adrianople along with 2/3 of his army, I again point to the crushing defeat the Goths suffered at Naissus a century earlier as a counter-balance.

 I suggest you get a more accurate list that has some basis in fact or I promise you somebody will tear it to pieces, by the way Carrhae has become a tired example that you use in every single topic like its some astonishing revelation. You cant keep saying the same thing and expecting it to have an impact on the debate.

 I ask again what have battles against Persia and the Goths got to do with battles between the Greeks and Romans and determining superiority?

Heraclius, if you want to claim an alleged superiority of Legion against Phalanx, the battle of Cynoscephalae isnt certainly the best example of this.

Philip V strategic mistakes were not just A reason Roman Legions won but they were the exclusive factor of Macedonian defeat.

Firstly, Philip knows that the terrain of Cynoscephalae is unfavourable for his army, yet he chooses to engage his army into a battle.

Secondly, as been pointed before, he makes the fatal mistake to engage with only a part of his force while his left flank was still marching.

Thirdly, the phalangites on the left flank tried to catch up with the rest of the charging army as historic sources point out "having noone to give them orders". This point clearly indicates a break in the Macedonian chain of command. Meaning another mistake of Philip's leadership. 

Following all these Leadership mistakes, its even safe to conclude that Cynoscephalae was a battle destined to be a defeat for Macedonians under these circumstances.

ok, Rome, U think I am fighting here????

Oh men, u are deadly wrong

I can list u Heraclius 2 times bigger scedule that rOme lost

I did not said that Filip the Arab was killed by persians, but he lost the battle against them

Ok, if there is so many loses, why u decided that Rome army was great????Grrek never was imperialist, but it had the most strongest army of its time, when even there was not Celts or Germans

But Roman guys were not stronger or better that Persian, German, Celt, Numidian or Huns, and especially Chinese

Originally posted by Janissary ok, Rome, U think I am fighting here???? Oh men, u are deadly wrong I can list u Heraclius 2 times bigger scedule that rOme lost I did not said that Filip the Arab was killed by persians, but he lost the battle against them Ok, if there is so many loses, why u decided that Rome army was great????Grrek never was imperialist, but it had the most strongest army of its time, when even there was not Celts or Germans But Roman guys were not stronger or better that Persian, German, Celt, Numidian or Huns, and especially Chinese

 You gave your list and then said something to the effect of "these are great Roman generals who died at the hands of Goths and Persians" your words not mine.

 Phillip the Arab didnt die at the hands of either, neither died many others you listed, infact some of it is purely made up from what I can see.

 Rome conquered the vast majority of celts, conquered the numidians, survived the huns (and later used them as mercenaries), skirmished and waged war with Persia for centuries and the Germans and never even met a Chinese army, so what your trying to prove here I have no clue.

 The Persians never came close to conquering the Roman empire, it was barely powerful enough to take the eastern provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine etc, but never much more beyond that. Everytime it took those territories from Rome or Byzantium it lost them again.

 The Greeks were never imperialists ok so what do you call the empire of Alexander the great?

Are u crazy?????

Man, I meant greeks during Persian and Peloponnes war

And also, It was no Greek at all, It was Macedonians

I think u know that

 I'm still waiting for you to explain your list of "great roman generals" who died at the hands of the goths or persians?

 Did you just read the fates of many of those men wrong or did you just make them up like im starting to suspect?

 ok

Scipio Aelianus-lost 60 000 men against Numantians-137 b.c.

149b.c. Numidian king Jugurta defeated Romans and captured 40 000 men and then sold them back to rome

The Battle of Arausio-105 b.c.-Teuton Germans defeated more than 80 000 legioners with same tactics in Cannae

Gordian-244 a.d.

Dura Europus-255a.d.

Valerian-260a.d.-Both 3 were defeated and destroyed with their army only by Shapur

The battle of Celtiberians-137 b.c.

Romans were defated by Numantians-II battle

All Great LEADERS-Virathus, Lusitania, Arminius, defeated together more than 5 Roman armies and were killed by their own men becouse Romans paid them

Vercingetorix-Defeated Ceasar-Undefeatable Ceasar (Well, I know, then Ceasar defeated him, but whatever)

149b.c.-Thracians defeated romans, killed all of them and cut the head of their commander and sent to senate as a Present of result of Grat and Powerfull Roman Legions

Originally posted by Janissary  ok Scipio Aelianus-lost 60 000 men against Numantians-137 b.c. 149b.c. Numidian king Jugurta defeated Romans and captured 40 000 men and then sold them back to rome The Battle of Arausio-105 b.c.-Teuton Germans defeated more than 80 000 legioners with same tactics in Cannae Gordian-244 a.d. Dura Europus-255a.d. Valerian-260a.d.-Both 3 were defeated and destroyed with their army only by Shapur The battle of Celtiberians-137 b.c. Romans were defated by Numantians-II battle All Great LEADERS-Virathus, Lusitania, Arminius, defeated together more than 5 Roman armies and were killed by their own men becouse Romans paid them Vercingetorix-Defeated Ceasar-Undefeatable Ceasar (Well, I know, then Ceasar defeated him, but whatever) 149b.c.-Thracians defeated romans, killed all of them and cut the head of their commander and sent to senate as a Present of result of Grat and Powerfull Roman Legions

 You said Goths and Persians  now your mentioning gauls, celt-iberians and numantians etc?

 Besides you said generals who were killed in battle against goths and persians  these other battles have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Besides Spain was conquered as was Gaul and Numidia and Thrace the Germans were crushed afterwards in battles I earlier showed you.

 I'm getting bored of reminding you of your own point, generals KILLED in battle against the GOTHS and/or PERSIANS, thats what you said.

 Gordian, Phillip the Arab, Valentinian etc were not killed in battle against either of them, so your info is either faulty or you just plain lied.

Gordian, Phillip the Arab, Valentinian-exactly from the book that says that Rome is Great-They were died in the land of Shapur I

I think u should learn something about Huns, just becouse they created 4 great empires which shaked the world, I understand u, It is hard to find a book, but u can find from Inernet, dear Eagle, Bold Eagle

I think it was Pope Leo 4th who came in fron of Attila and asked not to destroy Rome

I never in this topic told that Huns were great, usually I named Persians, Hispanians, Africans and German tribes

 Then that book is wrong, Gordian I commited suicide after his son Gordian II was killed in battle in North Africa during a civil war in 238.

 Gordian III is claimed by the Persians to have died in battle, however it is far more likely that after Gordian III was defeated a mutiny within the Roman army was stirred up by Phillip the Arab and Gordian III was executed, although some sources claim it was illness. At the very least the cause of his detah is widely open to debate and will probably never be known.

 Phillip the Arab was killed in battle against Decius in another civil war in 249.

 Valentinian I died from almost certainly a heart attack or something very similar when he was angered by a German delegation.

 Valentinian II either commited suicide or was murdered by Arbogast and Valentinian III was murdered by loyal supporters of the general Aetius.

 Suffice to say most if not all of those men did not even die in Persian territory, nevermind at the hands of the Persians and certainly not all in Shapurs time.

 The Huns being greater than Rome is pure fantasy anyway, the Romans contributed infinitely more to the world and land they inhabited than the barbarian Huns ever did. The Huns couldnt even destroy the Roman empire when practically bankrupt, without an effective army of its own and led by incompetants or raving lunatics. The Romen empire lasted over 1400 years in various shapes forms and names you could even include the holy roman empire in that and say 1800 years, the empire of Attila lasted a tiny fraction of that and in that time contributed barely a thing in comparison.

 If the army of Attila the Hun was so amazing, then surely it would have smashed the Roman-Germanic alliance at Chalons and overrun the western empire with ease.

 Very good post Eagle , shame Janissary was incapable of posting something of similar quality on the Huns or infact anything.

 I'll consider my reply and post it later.

 I have to agree with Constantine there, its pure fantasy to believe that Attila the Hun would pay a blind bit of attention to the pope, why on earth would a pagan be deterred from his prize purely because of a leading figure in a church that was totally foreign to him.

 Attilas army was suffering from its own success, ravaging the land made it impossible to live off it for any length of time, disease was setting in and I believe the eastern empire (unsure of the details) had launched an expedition into Hunnic territory along the Danube. With his territory now under serious threat it would of been foolish to remain in Italy with all these factors added together.

 Eagle. I understand what you mean about Rome bringing along a culture that many of the conquered may well have had no interest in, but evidently the conquered did enjoy and like what the Roman brought with them on the whole.

 The baths were always full, the arenas packed with spectators, they will have enjoyed the security Rome offered, the freedom from marauding bands looting settlements and land at will. This was in the good old days of course, the days of the pax romana when the Roman empire existed in as long a period of peace as much of europe probably ever has.

 There were rebellions every now and then of course, but the Roman army was at its peak and the empire was overall a safe and secure place to live and prosper.

 Surely more preferable than the way for example the Gauls used to exist, tribes that were almost as often fighting each other as any external enemy, squabbling and waging war. I doubt many who grew up in Gaul under the Roman empire will have envied the life style of their forefathers over the one they had now.

 As a westerner, being brought up in a society where art, literature, architecture are highly valued, i'm bound to frown at the way the Huns used to live and treat these things. No respect whatsoever for anybody they encountered, conquering it would seem purely for the sake of conquest, to feed their lust for loot or land before moving on to the next unfortunate target. If you were lucky enough to survive the latest Hunnic raid, then you found your city was probably gutted and everything you and your people have built has been wiped out in an orgy of looting and destruction.

 I thoroughly believe that the Huns deserve to be called barbarians, I don't see or maybe understand how Attila was seeking peace how can somebody sack as you say 70 Thracian cities and then be a man seeking peace and harmony? You can say something similar about Rome, but even Rome didnt go around conquering purely for the sake of it, they had to think of the cost in funds and manpower, the politics, what effect this would have on the empire, the conquered, how they would rule/control the newly conquered lands etc. The Huns didnt have to consider barely any of this, as they rarely stuck around long enough to get overly involved.

 The Romans were obviously far from saints, but atleast they offered something after they had taken whatever it was they wanted, the Huns seem to have brought nothing but chaos in their wake, that left no lasting legacy or major contribution.

 Had the Huns conquered the west I dare say if there is an argument over whether or not there was a *dark age* there wouldnt be, had the Huns stuck around, since the Huns had no interest in Roman culture or civilisation as we know it I see no real reason why western europe wouldnt have become a cultural desert. As the Huns swept aside the tottering Roman empire and crushed the Germanics who by now lived within it and were atleast partly romanised.

 I think the Roman culture did little else but benefit the people in the empire, I don't see how western europe for example would of progressed had it been under the rule of nomads and the *uncivilised*.

 I dont profess to be an expert on the Huns, I admit that being a westerner i'm certain to see things in a somewhat biased manner, I don't hate the Huns and I don't think the Romans were perfect superhumans who did no wrong. I just know who i'd rather be ruled by and whos culture i'd rather have existed in and which benefited the people most, I believe the people of the day felt very much the same as me.

 The fighting ability of the Huns I dont doubt, but still I find it odd how the Huns could conquer many a Germanic tribe etc then come against a coalition of bitter enemies no stronger than anybody they had conquered before and yet failed. Attila apparently this great leader and commander failed to push aside this army which probably had barely a true Roman in it.

 I have far more respect for Aetius who for many years had worked constantly to keep the empire on its feet, he had the help of the Huns but he was clearly a thoroughly good commander who tried everything to keep Rome up. The fact he was later assassinated by a total incompetant like Valentinian III is both tragic and infuriating in its stupidity. Just my opinion anyway.

 You seem to know far more than me on the Huns, so please let me know if i've made any glaring mistakes so i can avoid doing the same in the future and so learn more about the Huns.

 Again thank you Eagle for your kind compliments.

 I'm often unsure how to look at Chalons I have seen so many different versions of the battle so many numbers of casualties etc that it is incredibly difficult to paint a clear picture, its just one of those battles that is open to interpretation.

 As a battle is was a draw, it seems both sides suffered huge casualties, fought incredibly hard even though the sources are exaggerated there is no doubt that the ferocity of the combat was extreme. However if we are to believe the general account of the battle, Aetius did have the chance to finish the Huns off, but decided the Huns were useful as a counter-weight. To remove the one thing that was uniting the fractured western empire in a common cause would be suicidal for an empire that otherwise would be attacked from all sides.

 Assuming this is true, then I think Aetius made the right decision and had he lived longer perhaps he could of kept the empire afloat, anyway thats not important.

 Yes I believe plague played a major role in Attilas retreat from Italy, however i've watched a couple of programs on the history channel lately, referring to this. Is it not possible, that the heavy casualties Attila suffered at Chalons made it impossible to both campaign in Italy and defend his base in Hungary?

  Had Attilas army not been threatened by plague and famine, but his base was under attack I think he may have abandoned the campaign anyway to defend his territory which was under attack from the eastern empire, ill search for a source to back this up. Anyway I am sure that the eastern Emperor Marcian had eventually sent troops to Italy to help the west making the capture of Rome even more hazardous for Attila, so there were many things to take into consideration.

 I certainly will agree with what Aetius is often called "the last of the Romans", so I very much respect Aetius as much as I do any other Roman/Byzantine general.

 Well if you want to use me as a source of knowledge of the Romans then i'd be happy to offer you anything I can help with, i'm far from an expert obviously but my knowledge is growing everyday so I cant be half bad .

 The same to you on the Huns, I oughta know more about eastern cultures and empires etc than I do, so I hope to learn more about them in the future.

ok after studying the chine�s military for 2 or more hours i have decided that the Romans will be victories in the end......the roman economical power was much more stronger then the chine�s.....so yes the chine�s had the crossbow witch could made some good damage on the roman army....but roman ingenuity and the power to adopt to a new type of warfare would probably kick ass....pulse the Chinese still used chariots as a main mobile force witch really lacks the agility needed to fight roman army......and the roman had a professional army witch was much more experienced then the Chinese witch was drafted only for 2 years.

look at this its.....its beutiful....

chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>