Hypothetical - Ancient Rome vs Han China

[retaxis]

So assuming a battle takes place lets give both sides the benefit of the doubt and attempt at a reasonable scenario

Romans could potentially field
150k Infantry
25k Archers
25k auxillary
15k cavalry

China could field (as proven in warring states period prior to han dynasty and during han dynasty)
500k infantry (mix of heavy infantry with shields and one handed weapons as well as lighter infantry with halberds to rip shields off and spearmen)
200k cavalry (mix of heavy cavalry and horse archers). Battle of Mobei etc
100k archers with advanced bows such as the recurve bow and the repeating crossbow and heavy crossbows
50k auxillary troops (throw spears/firebombs/smoke bombs rope hooks to tear apart roman infantry formations etc)

Romans could potentially field a total army of 215k while China can field 850k

Battle would go about like this:
1. China and Roman forces advance towards each other
2. When close to each other, Chinese cavalry attack and destroy Roman cavalry forces as they outnumber their inferior roman cavalry counterparts 15:1.
3. Chinese cavalry using superior mobility attack the Roman camp and destroy all food, water, medicine, ammunition etc demoralizing the Romans.
4. Chinese heavy infantry and Roman Infantry engage in hand to hand combat while Chinas far superior archers with recurve bows and repeating crossbows tear up the Roman auxillary.
5. Chinese cavalry, after sacking the roman camp, comes back and flanks the Romans from behind while the infantry surrounds the Romans from the front.
6. Once the Roman force is completely surrounded, Chinese use archers and auxillary troops to wear down the romans from raining arrows to choking romans with smoke and fire bombs.
7. After a few hours, Romans become too tired and injured and fatigued to hold up their shields to defend themselves from arrow fire. This is when the real killing begins.
8. Heavy fatigue sets in, Romans can't lift a shield or a sword any longer and drop all weapons to retreat into one another causing tens of thousands of Romans to be trampled to death by their own forces e.g. battle of cannae
9. Victory with little loss on the Chinese side and total destruction of all roman forces.

 

[MH.Yang]

Romans however did have strong logistics and made good roads. However in warfare they are slow to adapt to new enemies and circumstances. The recurve bow, heavy horse cavalry and the repeating crossbow would have devastated Roman ranks and once Rome suffers a major defeat, slave rebellions begin popping up all over the place.


Haha don't bother with Indians. They are so poor and live in filth and have been dominated by all their neighbours. Even the Muslims ruled them for a thousand years. They can't fight, can't win wars, have no honor so they resort to trolling on the internet. They talk a lot but never back it up like real men and surrender to whoever is at the door.

I need to remind you. It was not until the eighth century that saddles became popular in Europe. The cavalry of the Han Dynasty already used saddles.

Roman cavalry had no saddles, so they could not use weapons with both hands. Facing the cavalry of the Han Dynasty, they will only be slaughtered. In fact, they were indeed slaughtered by the Huns' cavalry.

Moreover, the Han army used heavy crossbows and recurve bows, and the wooden shields and ring armour of Roman soldiers could not defend these weapons at all.

 

[MajesticPug]

I am surprised no Roman fanboy has come and gushed about how great the Roman infantry and tortoise formation tactics are lol. Normally they would come out and talk about how professional roman infantry are superior to everyone that existed back then.

Except that tight infantry formations are easily destroyed by heavy cavalry or horse archers or picked apart by smoke or flame bombs. Even two handed halberds will rip the shields right off the arms of roman soldiers as the halberds had hooks to deal with heavy horseman and heavy infantry alike. China just had too many tricks up its sleeves to deal with anything the Roman infantry could throw at them.

Way too many. LOL.. I love old Chinese texts on Chinese military campaigns and I could think of too many ways to crush the Roman infantry formations.

 

[retaxis]

as MH.yang explained as well these are the main technological differences between China and Rome that heavily favored China in the events of a war.

1. Superior recurve bows which can shoot further and penetrate shields and armour
2. Saddles on horses which allowed Chinese to fight much better on horse back and shoot arrows while galloping
3. Crossbows and repeating crossbows which Europe didn't have for another 1000years
4. Greater mobility and far number of horses and horsemen
5. Collosal city walls over 10metres in height and over 6 metres thick of solid stone. Compared to thin wooden 10foot roman walls. Much better siege defence.
6. Unified ethnic group without a massive slave population who often rebels e.g. serville wars etc

Han China, while existing at the same time as Rome and sharing similar land size, seems a few hundred years ahead in warfare.

 

[Beast]

Han china killed by Mao under great fail forward didnt have twitter...


Hans have always been existent to be serve others, all thru history to date, cant nobody prove this wrong...

LOL.. You mean Indian who worshipped their white British under colonial? There are no India before that. You need to say Thank you to white british who give u the identity. You even used english as the official language for education. LOL..

I dont know who is the slave.

China dont use english. They used Chinese to study and used Mandarin as official language thru out in China...

 

[Maula Jatt]

LOL.. You mean Indian who worshipped their white British under colonial? There are no India before that. You need to say Thank you to white british who give u the identity. You even used english as the official language for education. LOL..

I dont know who is the slave.

China dont use english. They used Chinese to study and used Mandarin as official language thru out in China...

India as a nation state yes , no one identified as Indian before British

But a geographical term like Europe, America always existed which over time became nation state of India, -thats why the name Indian ocean etc

so a Nepalese can call himself an Indian, just like Canadian is an American just not part of nation state of America

British didn't "give" them the identity, it was always there but just not the primary identity

British helped them unite against a common enemy, maybe you can say that

 

[retaxis]

LOL.. You mean Indian who worshipped their white British under colonial? There are no India before that. You need to say Thank you to white british who give u the identity. You even used english as the official language for education. LOL..

I dont know who is the slave.

China dont use english. They used Chinese to study and used Mandarin as official language thru out in China...

India is a god created joke if there is a god. A group of people who have no military achievements or inventions, live in absolutely filthy poverty and malnourished as hell, been dominated by everyone and anyone who shows up and is the laughing stock of the world when olympic games comes on every time. They really have no honor, no history and no pride and live in filth so they can only lie and slander. Its really quite sad that there is such a species of people like that in the world.

 

[LeGenD]

The fate of the Han Dynasty was similar to that of Rome. It also died in the increasingly serious corruption and internal power struggle. In fact, almost every Chinese dynasty perished because of internal problems.

In the late Han Dynasty, power was controlled by the political family. The factions of court eunuchs and court ministers engaged in vicious political struggle.

Natural disasters and long-term wars also led to serious economic problems in the Han Dynasty.

The large-scale land annexation made the overall economic structure of the Han Dynasty out of order. The living conditions of the lower class citizens deteriorated, which eventually led to a large-scale riot.

The Han Dynasty was also full of non Han people because of the conquest of other nationalities for hundreds of years. For example, Xiongnu people, Qiang people, Wuhuan people, etc. The ethnic conflict also led many people to question or even deny the Confucian values. This has also led to a decline in national cohesion.

The social security of the Han Dynasty also declined significantly, because many social problems led to the increase of violence and chaos.

All these reasons eventually led to the split of the Han Dynasty, and ultimately perished in the civil war.

But the Han Dynasty was a little different from the Roman Empire. The Han Dynasty did not lose any war with other nations until its demise. The three countries divided by the Han Dynasty, Wei, Shu and Wu, all won all the victories in the war with other nations.

Thanks for this informative feedback.

Chinese civilization is ancient with significant history of its own. There is much to learn from Chinese history as well. But people learn very slowly.

I realized from my studies that a vast and powerful Chinese Empire existed back in the days of the original Roman Empire:

"Han Dynasty; Indus Valley Civilization; and Achaemenid Empire - each very impressive in its own right.

Han Dynasty and Archaemenid Empire are standouts in particular because they were not only advanced in the matters of building a civilization but demonstrated impressive military capability, exploration capacity and able to influence their surroundings in profound ways."

Over 2000 years of economic history, in one chart

Because you can't accept the fact that India is as old and great a civilization as the chinese,and was in the golden period a hub of world manufacturing -particularly textiles,jewellery and high quality steel,as well as diamonds and spices.Most chinese posters(not all) here are driven by middle...

defence.pk

"China used to be big in times of Roman Empire as well. OBOR draw inspiration from the ancient Chinese Silk Routes which touched Roman Empire and other ancient civilizations."

[CHINA] Senator Reveals '30,000 US troops stationed in Taiwan island,' Equal to ‘Declaring War on China’ If It's True

Senator Reveals '30,000 US troops stationed in Taiwan island,' Equal to ‘Declaring War on China’ If It's True By Liu Caiyu Published: Aug 17, 2021 04:37 PM Updated: Aug 17, 2021 08:43 PM Screen shot A senior US senator, also a member of US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on his...

defence.pk

 

[MH.Yang]

Some people may think that the Roman Empire's ability to attack cities and city walls are excellent.

In fact, the Han Dynasty, which was also a farming civilization, had a better ability to attack cities and a higher and thicker city wall.

The wall of the Han Dynasty:

The walls of the Roman Empire:

 

[Brainsucker]

Before firearms were invented, it's almost almost the east beating the west in the history, with just a couple of exceptions.

No, not firearm. Even the Ming Dynasty has developed and used rifles in the war. And it was even Early Ming, the era of Emperor Yongle. Gunpowder has been utilized in China in war, to fight against Mongol.

I think the main reason why European countries became more advanced than China is because their renaissance era. where they throw away their old tradition (Religion tradition), feudalism lifestyle and embrace the scientific thinking. While in China, Qing Imperial government failed to evolved because of many reasons. But mostly because they exhausted their strength just to contain Han rebels who thought that Manchu was an aggressor. Similar to Mongol.

 

[Brainsucker]

I think Han Dynasty actually had a confrontation with one of Alexander the Great inheritor Country, Bactria. And according to the historical record, Bactria utilized Macedonian phalanx and maybe Macedonian Cavalry style Unit; to fight against Han. But they lost to Han Army, and had to sell their excellent horses to Han. Later on, Han used these horses to form their famous Cavalry Archers.

This war in Central Asia tell us the power of Han's capability in logistic. So I don't agree with some statement that said that Roman had better logistic than Han. In contrary, Han had excellent logistic, because they could reached Bactria with 100.000 army, and beat Xiong Nu in the northern grassland with 300.000 army (more than 100.000 of them were horse archers). It was not a simple feat to mobilized that kind of army in the Mongolian grassland.

 

[LeGenD]

So assuming a battle takes place lets give both sides the benefit of the doubt and attempt at a reasonable scenario

Romans could potentially field
150k Infantry
25k Archers
25k auxillary
15k cavalry

China could field (as proven in warring states period prior to han dynasty and during han dynasty)
500k infantry (mix of heavy infantry with shields and one handed weapons as well as lighter infantry with halberds to rip shields off and spearmen)
200k cavalry (mix of heavy cavalry and horse archers). Battle of Mobei etc
100k archers with advanced bows such as the recurve bow and the repeating crossbow and heavy crossbows
50k auxillary troops (throw spears/firebombs/smoke bombs rope hooks to tear apart roman infantry formations etc)

Romans could potentially field a total army of 215k while China can field 850k

Battle would go about like this:
1. China and Roman forces advance towards each other
2. When close to each other, Chinese cavalry attack and destroy Roman cavalry forces as they outnumber their inferior roman cavalry counterparts 15:1.
3. Chinese cavalry using superior mobility attack the Roman camp and destroy all food, water, medicine, ammunition etc demoralizing the Romans.
4. Chinese heavy infantry and Roman Infantry engage in hand to hand combat while Chinas far superior archers with recurve bows and repeating crossbows tear up the Roman auxillary.
5. Chinese cavalry, after sacking the roman camp, comes back and flanks the Romans from behind while the infantry surrounds the Romans from the front.
6. Once the Roman force is completely surrounded, Chinese use archers and auxillary troops to wear down the romans from raining arrows to choking romans with smoke and fire bombs.
7. After a few hours, Romans become too tired and injured and fatigued to hold up their shields to defend themselves from arrow fire. This is when the real killing begins.
8. Heavy fatigue sets in, Romans can't lift a shield or a sword any longer and drop all weapons to retreat into one another causing tens of thousands of Romans to be trampled to death by their own forces e.g. battle of cannae
9. Victory with little loss on the Chinese side and total destruction of all roman forces.

This is reasonable scenario? Dude?

1. Was it even possible to field and utilize 850,000 troops for one battle? What about cost-related considerations and logistics requirements of an army this big?
2. How many commanders in either camp?
3. What is the location of the battle? What are the geographical features of the location?
4. What is the Roman strategy for the battle?

Your scenario is too bland for the Roman camp and too ambitious for the Chinese camp to be taken at face value for one battle.

- - - - -

The closest real-life example of HOW a battle turned out between a LARGE [and competent] Roman side and a LARGE [and competent] Chinese-origin side is apparent in the Battle of Catalunian Plains that was fought in 451 AD in Gaul:

- Atilla utilized his Light Mobile Forces (LMF) to break the Roman Center and forced it to retreat.
- Atilla then utilized his LMF to bombard Roman Infantry Units (RIU) on the Roman Left (and also on the Roman Right) with arrows. But RIU on either side withstood volley after volley of arrows unleashed upon them by virtue of creating "tortoise formations." While this happened, Roman Auxiliary Units (RAU) stationed behind the RIU were able to inflict heavy losses on LMF of Atilla and forced them to retreat.
- Atilla then ordered his Heavy Cavalry Units (HCU) to charge towards RIU on the Roman Left (and also on the Roman Right) in an effort to break their "tortoise formations" but RIU held their ground. Atilla then moved to FLANK the Roman Right with his regrouped LMF. Romans lost a notable commander in this fight and Atilla felt that victory was within reach at this stage.
- Aetius had managed to recover the forces that composed of the Roman Center and charged towards the position of Atilla.
- The Roman Reserve that was in hiding in a geographical formation nearby descended from there and joined the Roman Right by FLANKING Atilla's forces that were locked in combat on this side, and made it possible to rout them. This was a decisive blow to Atilla's forces and he decided to RETREAT from the battlefield and forefeit his campaign in Gaul by extension.

Both camps suffered heavy losses in this battle but Romans prevailed by virtue of superior tactics. Aetius was the finest Roman commander and tactician of his time - he studied Chinese methods of warfare due to political situation of his time and used this knowledge to his advantage in the Battle of Catalunian Plains.

While Atilla was in the position to DICTATE where the battle would be fought to make sure that his LMF will not be hampered in the location of his choice, Aetius also studied the environment and created a reserve force to be brought to action when absolutely necessary (the element of Surprise calculus).

- - - - -

I am NOT doubting the Han Dynasty's capacity to fight a war with another great Empire but pointing out various factors that are likely to be involved in shaping the course of the war, and I would expect the war to last several years with multiple battles in the mix. You should study Punic Wars for perspective.

Roman military strength also varied across times.
Roman military strength was at its peak at 645,000 troops in the time of Constantine the Great.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I am surprised no Roman fanboy has come and gushed about how great the Roman infantry and tortoise formation tactics are lol. Normally they would come out and talk about how professional roman infantry are superior to everyone that existed back then.

Except that tight infantry formations are easily destroyed by heavy cavalry or horse archers or picked apart by smoke or flame bombs. Even two handed halberds will rip the shields right off the arms of roman soldiers as the halberds had hooks to deal with heavy horseman and heavy infantry alike. China just had too many tricks up its sleeves to deal with anything the Roman infantry could throw at them.

Why do you think the Roman's didn't have their own cavalry???

Just like a tank some places work well for them while others don't work out well.

In places where horses worked well they used them..in other places they used dismounted men.

It looks alot more cool in a movie to have men use shield formations than scury around like cowboys on horses.

It's not like they didn't have horses....they did have chariots after all.

 

[Yaoudelizard]

Some people may think that the Roman Empire's ability to attack cities and city walls are excellent.

In fact, the Han Dynasty, which was also a farming civilization, had a better ability to attack cities and a higher and thicker city wall.

The wall of the Han Dynasty:


View attachment 899733

View attachment 899734

View attachment 899737

The walls of the Roman Empire:

View attachment 899735


View attachment 899738

View attachment 899739

A lot of those wall in China were built in later dynasties but the idea is the same. Rammed earth faced with stone or brick will always be stronger than pure stone walls. Rammed earth walls withstood WW2 shells. You can’t knock them down, you either have to go over or around.

 

[MH.Yang]

A lot of those wall in China were built in later dynasties but the idea is the same. Rammed earth faced with stone or brick will always be stronger than pure stone walls. Rammed earth walls withstood WW2 shells. You can’t knock them down, you either have to go over or around.

The first and second pictures show the Han Dynasty city walls in Xi'an.

The third picture is the Great Wall. The Han Dynasty was one of the main construction periods of the Great Wall.