Roman Empire hands down times 3.
Only fanboys would say this. China would crush Rome like a maggot - Parthians and Huns steamrolled them all day.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Roman Empire hands down times 3.
Roman Soldiers were muscular. Roman empire had better Naval power.
Roman Soldiers were muscular. Roman empire had better Naval power.
Han swords mostly were iron swords, the figure has two bronze swords, it was Spring and Autumn &Warring States Period swords.Han Dynasty: Infantry and Cavalry Armor
View attachment 156298
Han Army Swords
View attachment 156300 Armor of the Son of Heaven (天子), the Han Emperor.
Your post shows that you have not read classical Chinese history or East Asian Military History. For one, simply seizing one state's capital does not necessarily mean said state would collapse. For one, during China's Zhanguo Shidai -- 戰國時 (Warring States Period), conquest of one state meant defeating the enemy's army, eradication of rebel forces, and the forced occupation of all cities, towns, forts of said state.
During Japan's own Sengoku Jidai -- 戦国時代 (Warring States Period), the unification of Japan was through the complete and total military subjugation of all the Feudal Domains (cities, towns, keeps, forts, castles) as seen through the works of Oda Nobunaga , then his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi, then later again by Tokugawa Ieyasu.
The point: simply taking the state's capital does not equate to the conquest of said state. The latter can only be realized by the total and absolute occupation of all strong holds, and when one has laid waste to the enemy's military force.
That's actually typical Europe thinking. Or rather, it is the philosophy of warfare between small nations. The reason is that small nation typically consist of small population and the capital serves as the sole technical, manufacturing and political center. In feudal nations, the capital is also the main leader's primary source of strength and without it, the leader can't keep the local nobles in check. This is why in small nations, once the capital falls, the other areas quickly fall apart. For these nations, losing the capital not only means a major loss in production and manpower, it also means the end of effective leadership even if the leader itself managed to escape. Ancient China is very different between it is much larger with production capacities spreading out over a large number of cities. More important, by Han dynasty, China is already an absolute monarchy, this means even after the loss of capital, effective resistances can still be mounted because there is no local nobles to take advantage of the weakness.
When the ancient Chinese empires fall, it is never because simple military defeat. The empire has to experience many decades of political turmoil before it becomes weak enough for a military strike to work.
Obviously the Romans. The orientals had leather/bamboo armor while the Romans had metal. The Romans also had better military doctrine.
Han swords mostly were iron swords, the figure has two bronze swords, it was Spring and Autumn &Warring States Period swords.
Here's armor is the Ming and the Qing Dynasty armors, the outside is silk, cotton,, inside is iron,This period firearms guns etc development, armor for the less demanding.
lol,Really? But history proves that for numerous times, China either surrendered or being conquered gradually parts after parts after a quick, fatal cavalry attack reached her capital. For example, in 1127, the sack of Song capital led to the surrender of Song and the lost of the whole Northern China, the lost of Bejing to nomadic Qing in 1644 lead to the collapse of the whole Ming Empire.
I do not mention Japan case or any other smaller countries. In fact, Vietnam almost never failed simply by the lost of the capital either. Interestingly, the country usually abandoned its capital and withdraw its main force in an organized manner to the jungle when the enemy was strong physically as well as mentally; and came back latter when the already weaken by the hostile climate, diseases, lack of food and constant small to medium size ambushes.
So the point here is that as I am not trying to mention any other nations but the giant China. Therefore, I do not think it is relevant when you mention Japan history as an explanation that I am wrong.
The Han defeated the Huns, who burned Rome.