Roman Empire vs Han Empire

[TheTruth]

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.

 

[Bong]

Roman Soldiers were muscular. Roman empire had better Naval power.

 

[Aepsilons]

Roman Soldiers were muscular. Roman empire had better Naval power.

Muscularity does not predispose to victory. If it were so, then Goliath (Ǧālūt) should have defeated the Prophet David (Dawud). However, David (Dawud) was victorious over Goliath (Ǧālūt) , and Israel laid waste to the Army of the Philistines.

 

[dlclong]

Liqian (village) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

骊靬人简介
公元前53年，也就是中国西汉甘露元年，罗马共和国执政官克拉苏率军远征今天的伊朗地区，最后兵败。一支6000人的罗马军团突出重围，却没有回到罗马。近年，多名历史学家的研究成果表明， 汉称罗马为骊靬，故设骊靬县，赐罗马降人耕牧为生，化干戈为玉帛。如今他们的后裔依然健在，并在外貌上遗传了其祖先的不少特征。
骊靬人历史
古时候的骊靬人英勇善战，东晋时曾战败前凉大将和昊，威震陇右。后渐与汉民族和其他民族融合，为华夏民族团结，社会进步和经济繁荣作出了贡献。” 据《汉书·陈汤传》记载：公元前36年，汉西域都护甘延寿、付校尉陈汤，讨伐匈奴郅支单于，战于郅支城（今哈萨克斯坦江布尔城），陈汤等人在这里发现了一支奇特的军队，他们以步兵百余人，夹门鱼鳞阵、盾牌方阵，城外有重木城的战法。这一战法当时只有罗马军队采用。为此，历史学家们认为，这就是在卡尔来战役中溃退并已失踪17年的一支罗马军的残部。随之有了历代史书所记载的汉王朝在今甘肃省永昌县之南的祁连山麓置“骊靬县”，专门为这批古罗马降人修筑古城堡的记载。在者来寨有一方亭“骊靬亭”，亭正中立有一块大石牌，上刻“罗马东征军归宿碑记”。碑上记载有：公元前53年，即西汉甘露元年，罗马东征军在卡尔来遭围歼，突围出来的约6000余人，回国无路栖身深山，寻机东移，越安息东界，流徙西域，经多年辗转，一部归康居，一部归大月氏。汉初元五年，康居将这支异军借给西移的匈奴郅支单于，以胁邻国。后，大月氏发生内乱，寄生大月氏的罗马人闻讯转移至骊靬军的主力……隋文帝开皇十一年，即公元592年，鉴于骊靬人已被汉人同化，文帝下诏，将骊靬县并番和县，骊靬建县共628年。在者来寨大路左边村中心即是“骊靬遗址”所有地。县政府已在遗址前立起了石柱，用铁链围起加以保护，古城墙正中竖有一石碑，上刻“骊靬遗址”四个大字。碑的后面也刻有碑记，叙述建骊靬县城的经过和历史。现在骊靬遗址城墙残存部分长不过30来米，高不过3米。在永昌县城西10公里，有个富饶美丽的地方叫河滩村，又叫南泉。这里有20多户罗马人的后裔。

骊靬遗址位于永昌县城西南10公里，原属焦家庄乡楼庄子村六社，2000年改设为骊靬行政村。东与城关镇永昌羊场，东寨镇前夹山相连，南临祁连山支脉照面山和肃南县皇城城区接界，西靠折兰滩和夹道早卢沟，面积约10平方公里，大部属荒漠草地和山地林地。实际耕地面约1500亩，现有居民76户，298人。
2007年科学家通过对当地人的遗传鉴定後，发现其Y染色体多为东亚本地固有类型，且大部分单倍型和罗马人没有关系，并指出报导当地人DNA有罗马血统的新闻为假新闻，中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所刘国鹏就曾经撰文介绍国际知名汉学家白佐良的观点，认为「罗马军团流落中国」之说是各路新闻媒体争相抛售的报导，而千篇一律的新闻报导也正说明其缺乏足够的科学和文献支持。


意大利学者谈骊靬人是罗马降卒后裔的证据
严肃的国际汉学研究杂志并未刊登各路新闻媒体争相抛售的报道，而千篇一律的新闻报道也正说明其缺乏足够的科学和文献支持。

　　自美国学者德效骞首次就中国甘肃骊靬人与卡尔莱之战古罗马军团后裔之间的关系提出大胆假设以来，国内外学者遂对此频频投以关注之目光，历时半个多世纪以来，国际、国内学界之兴趣和热情未尝稍歇。但是，目前进入中国学者视野的国际研究成果，除了美国学者德效骞、澳大利亚学者哈里斯之外，其他国家学者的声音似乎鲜少耳闻，尤其是作为古罗马帝国直接继承者的意大利人，其对此领域的研究态度、视野和方法到底如何？我们似乎一无所知，即便像对古罗马学颇有研究的台湾学者邢义田，其借重的研究资料当中，当代意大利学者的研究成果也几乎没有受到什么关注和引用，因此，为拓宽国内学术界对骊靬人来源研究的视野，笔者特在此引介两篇意大利学者的相关论文，前者为国际知名汉学家白佐良，后者为罗马学和古代历史学专家阿迪诺菲，以期对国内学界提供抛砖引玉之助。

汉学家白佐良：

　　意大利著名汉学家白佐良（Giuliano Bertuccioli）曾在1999年第1期的《华人世界》（Mondo Cinese）上发表了有关骊靬人来源的看法，该文标题为“捕风捉影：中国惊现克拉苏罗马军团后裔”（Serpenti di Mare:I pronipoti dei legionari di Crasso si troverebbero in Cina）。

　　白佐良首先提到了德效骞在西方学术界有关这一问题的首创性，即德效骞根据中国史料记载而发表的一系列有关骊靬人与罗马军团士兵关系的文章，如1942年《通报》总第36期上发表的《公元前35年中国与罗马的军事接触》（A military contact between Chinese and Romans in 35 B.C.）、1941年《美国哲学期刊》第42期上发表的同名文章；1943年于《古典哲学》第38期上发表的《罗马对中国绘画的影响》（A Roman influence on Chinese painting）。但是，与此同时，白佐良还提到了意大利学界一位与德效骞的观点和立场针锋相对的学者达菲纳（P. Daffinà）的文章《郅支单于》（Chi-chih shan-yü），该文1969年发表于《东方研究杂志》（Rivista degli Studi Orientali）第44期上。

　　白佐良认为，公元前53年的卡尔莱战役和公元前35年怛罗斯战役作为历史事实，的确毋庸置疑，但是，值得注意的是，由于两场战役在时间上相差近20年，因此，卡尔莱战役中最年轻的士兵，至怛罗斯战役时应该已近40岁左右，而且，在20余年的流亡生涯中，其身体状况似已不堪担当雇佣兵的体质。

　　不过，自1980年起，已由多个国家的考古队前往该地进行实地考古发掘，如俄罗斯、澳大利亚、奥地利和中国等，根据这些考古学家的说法，中国人征服郅支匈奴之后，俘获了100多人的罗马军团雇佣兵，并将其安置在今天甘肃境内一座有着上千居民的小城内，该城的名字恰和中国人对罗马帝国在汉代的称呼相似——骊靬。

　　此外，骊靬城与罗马的传承关系似乎也为考古发现所证实，即该城的建筑格局为直角，这一点与罗马帝国时期的筑城技术极为相似，但是，白佐良对此表示质疑，并认为同时期中国的筑城方式也不乏此例。

　　到了20世纪90年代，世人对于骊靬人的关注再掀高潮。自1990年的英文版《北京周刊》（Beijing Review）上刊载了一篇名为“中国的首批罗马人”（The First Romans in China）的文章之后，国际媒体的接连涌现，白佐良在文中列举了俄罗斯、中国、意大利等国的媒体报道如哈里斯（D. Harris）、瓦谢尼金（V.V. Vasenkin）和柯怡萨洛夫（S.A. Koissarov）1990年发表在Obsetvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae杂志上的联合署名文章“Rimliane v Kitae: perspectivy poska”；中国人王真（音）于1994年发表于《华商报》上的文章《古罗马军消失于甘肃之谜有新发现》；1989年10月5日刊载在意大利《新闻报》（La Stampa）上的文章《消失于戈壁的罗马军队》；1989年10月21日刊登于《晚邮报》的《在中国沙漠深处探寻罗马人消失的方舟》；1990年5月4日刊登在该报上的《一项考古发现：骊靬与罗马相似之处？》。

　　不过，对于上述媒体报道和关注，白佐良毫不迟疑地指出， 严肃的国际汉学研究杂志并未刊登各路新闻媒体争相抛售的报道，而千篇一律的新闻报道也正说明其缺乏足够的科学和文献支持。最大的质疑在于，上述文章的作者以一种假设作为前提，即将郅支城的100多位罗马降卒这样一种想当然的假设作为前提，从而成了一种命题作文式的论证。

　　此外，两千年前困顿褴褛的100多位罗马降卒，近20年之后，势必年事已长，且与当地多民族妇女通婚，那么逾两千年之后，其后裔之中仍在体貌特征上保留其先辈的遗传特征则势必极其困难，而且，克拉苏时期的罗马军团士兵在当时并非都是金黄头发和蓝眼珠，今天很多媒体的这一削足适履式的举动无疑是相当滑稽的。

　　最后，白佐良在文中特意附录了由意中协会（Associazione Italia-Cina）组织翻译的文章《甘肃：古罗马军队后裔》（Gansu. I Discendenti dell"Esercito Romano），该文发表于1999年的中国《旅游》杂志。

罗马学专家拉斐尔·阿迪诺菲：

　　意大利学界另一篇值得注意的文章系古代历史学家和罗马学专家拉斐尔·阿迪诺菲（Raffaele Adinolfi）所作《在中国的克拉苏士兵和蒙古、印度与锡兰的坎帕尼亚商人》（Soldati di Crasso in Cina e mercanti campani in Mongolia, India e Ceylon）。

　　阿迪诺菲教授对中国与罗马帝国关系素有研究。早在1977年，阿迪诺菲就出版了专著《罗马帝国与古代中国关系》（I rapporti tra l"Impero Romano e la Cina antica）。该书不仅在意大利国内受到关注，而且在国际罗马学界也反响不小，比如德国弗莱堡大学教授乌尔里希·芒特（Ulrich Manthe）就对该书倍加关注，并在德国著名刊物《时针》（Gnomon）上撰文予以特别介绍。1998年11月24日，乌尔里希·芒特更亲自致函阿迪诺菲，探讨美国学者德效骞在骊靬所发现的罗马人后裔的来源问题。而且，芒特就1998年11月23日《北京周刊》上所刊载的有关骊靬的考古发现表现出浓厚的兴趣，据称，此次考古发掘找到了罗马人的相关遗迹，但是，令人遗憾的是，芒特认为，由于该报道来源于大众媒体，因此，其真实性和科学性值得怀疑。

　　芒特提到的这篇文章，作者为中国人崔扁，虽然该文属于一般性的大众媒体报道，但是，由于其关乎古代罗马和中国的关系研究，阿迪诺菲还是很郑重地将其翻译为意大利文。

　　阿迪诺菲认为，尽管该文不属于严格的学术论文，且观点和资料来源庞杂，但是，其中还是反映出近年来国际学界对古代中西交通研究方面的进步，并在一定程度上拓宽了罗马帝国在中国、蒙古、印度和锡兰的活动视野。不过，众说纷纭的骊靬罗马后裔问题如果属实的话，当属于中西方交通史上的个案，而其根据和来源只有诉诸于中国的古典历史文献。

　　阿迪诺菲随后叙述了昔日的卡尔莱战役。当时，罗马执政官克拉苏共率领7个罗马军团，4000名骑兵和4000名弓箭手和投石兵。然而，卡尔莱一役，克拉苏的军队损失惨重，4万多名军团士兵，逾半阵亡，约1万人被俘。克拉苏的高卢骑兵全军覆没，其中有500人被安息骑兵俘获。按照安息帝国的战争习惯，上述俘虏被置于帝国的东部边陲并以奴隶身份从事军事服务。公元前20年，罗马帝国与安息缔约息兵，并要求后者交还公元前53年卡尔莱战役中的俘虏，但是，昔日幸存的士兵根本无从查找，那么这些俘虏的去向到底如何，则成了时至今日中西交通史上的千古之谜。

　　阿迪诺菲随后在文中引述了班固《前汉书》中的《陈汤传》，论及今日耳熟能详的陈汤攻打郅支城一役，并提到其中的“重木城”、“鱼鳞阵”和“圆盾”等描述，其来源为1957年德效骞于伦敦出版的《古代中国的罗马城池》（A Roman city in ancient China）一书，该书由阿迪诺菲本人和另一位合作者埃斯波西托（R. Esposito）翻译为意大利文，然未获出版。

　　在《中国的克拉苏士兵和蒙古、印度与锡兰的坎帕尼亚商人》一文中，阿迪诺菲详细叙述了上述发表在德文版《北京周刊》上的署名为崔扁的文章。其围绕的重点为该文所提到的1993年5月由部分国际考古学家针对甘肃永昌县者来寨的考古发掘报告。其中提到的发掘遗迹和实物主要包括如下4点：

　　其一，“骊靬遗迹”。当地人称之为“骊靬遗迹”的古城墙，该墙长10米，高1—2米，最宽处约3米，墙呈S形走势。而在20世纪70年代初，据当地人回忆，该墙尚有100米长。

　　其二，当地村民的外在体貌特征与罗马人有一定的相似之处，如红栗色头发、隆鼻、深目等。

　　其三，考古学家所发掘的古代骊靬人骨骼颇为高大。

　　其四，考古学家还发现了一系列古代器物，如铁头盔等。

　　其五，者来寨村民对牛的特殊崇拜，以及嗜好斗牛活动等，这些均与古罗马人的习俗相近。

　　但是，对于崔扁一文中所提的种种报道，阿迪诺菲认为，只有当历史学家和考古学家发表正式的相关学术报告和与骊靬有关的科学资料及数据，才能对古代罗马与中国在公元前1世纪下半叶的关系勾画出一幅完整而又值得信赖的画面。

　　作者：刘国鹏 单位：中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所来源中国社会科学报)

 

[Aepsilons]

Han Dynasty: Infantry and Cavalry Armor

Han Heavy Cavalry

Han Army Crossbow

Han Army Swords

Armor of the Son of Heaven (天子), the Han Emperor.

 

[Arya Desa]

Obviously the Romans. The orientals had leather/bamboo armor while the Romans had metal. The Romans also had better military doctrine.

 

[Aepsilons]

The Glory of the Imperial Chinese Army , Han Dynasty

No empire can ever be successful if it cannot defend itself and its subjects from enemies. The Han dynasty was not an exception to this rule. Several enemies threatened China during the Han era and it was the responsibility of the Han dynasty military to keep the empire and its people safe. Early threats to the Han dynasty came from nomadic confederations like the Xiongnu in the North.

Armies during the early Han period were generally recruited through conscription or the obligatory recruitment of people for military services. Once a male commoner turns twenty-three, he is required to undergo a year of training and another year of service as a non-professional soldier. The minimum age for conscription was later reduced to twenty. Training could be done in the infantry, cavalry, or the navy branch of the armed forces. Once the trainee becomes a soldier in active service he can be assigned in one of the three posts during that period; in a king’s court, on the frontier or under the Minister of the guards.

The system for conscription for the Han dynasty military however was altered during the Eastern Han period. Avoiding the conscription was possible as long as one could pay the commutable tax. The army therefore was comprised largely of volunteers. Even the Eastern Han court preferred a military force recruited through a volunteer army.

The military forces of the Han dynasty was said to have used the most advance forms of weaponry during that time. Swords were a favored weapon and the improvement in iron casting and working during the Han period made it possible for them to produce stronger swords. Improvements were also made to the traditional crossbow making it more accurate and powerful. The army began to adapt stirrups to gain greater balance riding horses.

Because of the power of the Han dynasty military, they were able to rid China of many enemies and even enabled the kingdom to spread its influence over larger areas across Asia. This also opened the gates for trading. The Chinese have then maintained strong military forces throughout most of their imperial history, a tradition that was solidified during the Han dynasty.

 

[dil_dil]

Roman Soldiers were muscular. Roman empire had better Naval power.

Did you see them in hollywood movies?

 

[dlclong]

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.

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.

 

[nguyen]

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.

Really? But history proves that for numerous times, China either surrendered or being conquered gradually parts after parts after a quick, fatal cavalry attack reaching 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.

 

[nguyen]

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.

I did not say that the production or manpower and wealth of China just concentrate on its capital, what I mentioned is DISARRAY. After the capital collapsed, the whole rest army would lose their morale. And in each major city, a resistance may be organized by a nobleman and each resistance would have no united and common command with others. In the era of Han Dynasty, the nomadic tribes in the north of China were not united enough, but later on, we could see the effectiveness those "barbarians" had in battle against the Chinese.

 

[Aepsilons]

Obviously the Romans. The orientals had leather/bamboo armor while the Romans had metal. The Romans also had better military doctrine.

Friend,


Before Latium even was Hellenized, when Rome was yet a small village in the Latium Peninsula, China was already a Magnificent Civilization as seen in the first Chinese Civilization, the Xia Dynasty, which rose into power 2070 BCE.

Secondarily, the Roman Army used iron on their armor, it was much later on when their plate armor (Lorica Segmentata) used thin steel on the outer exterior , but the interior remained iron. The Han Armies used steel plates in their armor , so much that Han Heavy Cavalry (in the later period) even utilized steel plates on horses.


See example below:

 

[Aepsilons]

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.

Thanks for that clarification, @dlclong , can you post more pictures of Han Military Weapons ?

 

[dlclong]

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.

lol,
Song failed because the Song Dynasty in the beginning, did not get the northern China for breeding horses land, leading the cavalry behind.
Ming was defeated due to civil strife, Li Zicheng attacking Beijing, so the Ming dynasty decline ,emperor Suicided,later, the Qing opportunity occupation of Beijing.

 

[C130]

The Han defeated the Huns, who burned Rome.

yet most empires since the fall of the Romans have emulated the Romans.

Romans are truly a empire unmatched in it's influence on the world.

the Han was a inward looking empire while the Romans was always striving for what laid beyond.