Romans vs Han China

[Juice]

Europe simply got lucky because of Ogedei's Khan's untimely death. If anything, it is pure dumb luck, like winning a lottery and it lasted for several centuries and it is about to end in a few decades:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...d-mongol-invasion-europe-helped-its-rise.html

As we could say you were lucky Rome didn't decide to burn Bangladesh. (woulda been hard, as most of it is under water most of the year)

 

[Genesis]

Thought Asians could count. America's population was less than twice Japanese Empire's at time of conflict, and we had a "Europe first" policy (most troops and equipment to Europe). And we always ruled a huge area (Europe and much of "Asia". Look around before posting to prevent looking like an idiot.

Oh, and the Greeks had better math.



Woulda coulda shoulda. Fact is Europe was not conquered by Mongols....China and India were.

China just by itself is bigger than all of western Europe. You also seem to forget that China tied up 2 million Japanese elites in WW2 and US had a lot more access to resources than the Japanese.

Greeks had better math? You don't even know what kind of math is developed in the rest of the world, how could you say they had better math?

By that same logic, A little city in Italy conquered all of western Europe and never conquered India and China, does that mean Romans suck or western Europeans are weak?

Also there is also another difference, after the mongols defeated the united poles and Hungarians, you consider these people true Europeans right, they retreated not because they can't keep going, but the Khan had died and they needed to go back to pay respects and find a place for themselves under the new emperor.

 

[kalu_miah]

As we could say you were lucky Rome didn't decide to burn Bangladesh. (woulda been hard, as most of it is under water most of the year)

And how is Bangladesh related to the topic?

 

[flamer84]

I'm going to have to go with the romans on this one,their main power comes from the fact that they never gave up,if they lost a battle they would raise another army and go at it,if they encountered an unfamiliar tactic(as it happened with the persians and their cavalry or the Carthage's elephants) they would adapt immediately in the next battle,(after their encountered the parthians they developed their own heavy cavalrly,they developed anti elephant spikes,they developed the "corbulo" for naval fighting against Carthage).How many times did we see chinese armies routed by steppe warriors? Did they ever learn?For hundreds of years they sent huge armies to their slaughter against their northern neighbours.
Most of you are right ,the romans were spurred on by greed,as was Europe,I love a famous saiyng by Hannibal before the battle of Magnesia-30.000romans vs 70.000 seleucids led by Antiochus the Great),supossedly Antiochus asked Hannibal if his army will be enough for the romans to wich Hannibal answered:"quite enough for the Romans, however greedy they are.")...the romans routed the greeks and carried the day.
I see many of you deny the pivotal role that the western wold played in shaping the world as we know it,it's your bussiness but the fact remains that without the white race with its pro's and con's the world will be more backward for sure,they drove it to modernity,like it or not and I think "thanks" are in order instead of the continuos hate speeches.

P.S. It seems that the italians didn't inherit Rome's capacity for war though)

 

[flamer84]

]A more appropriate question is what would happen to Europe as we know it today if Ogedei did not die at that moment and lived for another few months or years, and an invasion did take place. May be that is a topic for another thread.

Nothing! Things would have gone the same,the mongols didn't even destroy the russians in the long term,eventually they killed all the mongols descendants and took their lands,the same thing happenned with muslims in Spain.You see ,europeans,like the romans always come back after defeat and opression,they don't cry about it like most people "oh look,they enslaved us,they conquered us,they robbed us"...they take their time,they fight back over and over again and win even if it takes centuries,after all, it matters only who stands in the end.

 

[Wright]

Who cares. Chinese will always admire the Japanese and Mongolians conquerers due to sharing the same race, the Indians will admire the Arabs due to culture. Same goes for every people. These kinds of analysis are always clouded by bias.

 

[longyi]

^^^You got it all wrong buddy, traditionally, Chinese distrust Japanese and rarely have Mongolians in their daily mind sets.

 

[Audio]

How does this disprove what i said? All of Han dynasty population are Han chinese, how many of that, even if the 100 million is true, is true Roman?

If they march in a Roman army, that's good enough for this debate.
What is it important what ethnicity they were? Huns had half of army of rented non-Hun soldiers (Vizigoth's, Alan's, Ostrogoth's.....)

All you posted is Romans having the same or more people, the low end starts at 55 million and high end 100 million. How does me saying the numbers differ from source to source not true.

I posted that in your reply that Han's were more numerous and that would be the defining factor.
The rough estimates are both in the same ballpark, for Hans and Romans. That's what i was trying to convey to you, but it seems you are too thick or just paid to not see the obvious.

Also i'm not sure what college you went to but which one accepts wikipeida as a legit source. I'm assuming you just posted the sources on the wikipedia page.

Why don't you go through that list again, and point out to me which source you found non-legit. As far as i remember, most of it is college studies, books etc, the Han stats were taken from Chinese scholars publications.....

.....compared to you, where we have to believe your word, and upon checking we find it's not exactly like how you say it is-on multiple occasions. And you wanna question me? Please....

 

[Audio]

And how is Bangladesh related to the topic?

how is Ogedei Khan related to the topic? This is Romans, not Teutonic knights time, but i guess you scramble to support your masters with unrelated data. Either that, or just plain stupid.

Nothing! Things would have gone the same,the mongols didn't even destroy the russians in the long term,eventually they killed all the mongols descendants and took their lands,the same thing happenned with muslims in Spain.You see ,europeans,like the romans always come back after defeat and opression,they don't cry about it like most people "oh look,they enslaved us,they conquered us,they robbed us"...they take their time,they fight back over and over again and win even if it takes centuries,after all, it matters only who stands in the end.

Don't buddy, just don't. He is a close minded delusional poster that thinks Asians are destined to rule. They all follow this mantra that they are only returning to their rightful place as global leaders.

 

[Audio]

China just by itself is bigger than all of western Europe. You also seem to forget that China tied up 2 million Japanese elites in WW2 and US had a lot more access to resources than the Japanese.

Greeks had better math? You don't even know what kind of math is developed in the rest of the world, how could you say they had better math?

By that same logic, A little city in Italy conquered all of western Europe and never conquered India and China, does that mean Romans suck or western Europeans are weak?

Also there is also another difference, after the mongols defeated the united poles and Hungarians, you consider these people true Europeans right, they retreated not because they can't keep going, but the Khan had died and they needed to go back to pay respects and find a place for themselves under the new emperor.

Just to expose your's and @kalu_miah 's knowledge of history.

The one's fighting the Roman's were the Huns with Attila as commander. Ogedei Khan didn't even see Rome or Constantinople for that matter.

...you don't even know the difference between Hun's and Mongol's and you missed the dates by about 700 years.
Fucking amateurs lol..why do you two even post? To make the middle kingdom look good through lies and deceit?

 

[Wright]

Don't buddy, just don't. He is a close minded delusional poster that thinks Asians are destined to rule.

"Asian" is not a people or race. LOL. Its like saying humans are destined to rule.
FFS Russians, Australians are also "Asian".

 

[Genesis]

If they march in a Roman army, that's good enough for this debate.
What is it important what ethnicity they were? Huns had half of army of rented non-Hun soldiers (Vizigoth's, Alan's.....)



I posted that in your reply that Han's were more numerous and that would be the defining factor.
The rough estimates are both in the same ballpark, for Hans and Romans. That's what i was trying to convey to you, but it seems you are too thick or just paid to not see the obvious.




Why don't you go through that list again, and point out to me which source you found non-legit. As far as i remember, most of it is college studies, books etc, the Han stats were taken from Chinese scholars publications.....

.....compared to you, where we have to believe your word, and upon checking we find it's not exactly like how you say it is-on multiple occasions. And you wanna question me? Please....

First Romans until marian didn't even use non landed Romans, second, the barbarian soldiers came later in the empire, when the empire's Romans were depleted and the empire too large. Any mercenaries used could easily be swayed by money and their loyalty and commitment questioned.

The Han dynasty Chinese were mostly all han, which means at any point they can all be loyal soldiers, while it is not so in the Roman army. The Auxiliaries betrayed Rome quite a few times.

But I will concede that I didn't realize that Romans had so many men in the army.

At the start of Emperor Wu's reign, the Han empire had a standing army comprising 400,000 troops, which included 80,000 to 100,000 cavalrymen, essential to the future campaigns against the Xiongnu.[116] However, by 124 BC, that number had grown to a total of 600,000 to 700,000 troops, including 200,000 to 250,000 cavalrymen.[116] In order to sustain the military expeditions against the Xiongnu and its resulting conquests, Emperor Wu and his economic advisors undertook many economic and financial reforms, which proved to be highly successful

Han

As you can see China also had tons of troops, and if you read the reign of Emperor Wudi of Han, you will see that the campaigns he waged are not smaller than any Roman's.

Also he had way more cavalry, at the height he had 450,000 battle ready horses.

Not at all like some members claim the weakness and inexperience of Han dynasty.

 

[Audio]

"Asian" is not a people or race. LOL. Its like saying humans are destined to rule.
FFS Russians, Australians are also "Asian".

You are to stupid to respond to if you seriously did not understand what i meant with that. Sorry.

 

[Genesis]

Just to expose your's and @kalu_miah 's knowledge of history.

The one's fighting the Roman's were the Huns with Attila as commander. Ogedei Khan didn't even see Rome or Constantinople for that matter.

...you don't even know the difference between Hun's and Mongol's and you missed the dates by about 700 years.
Fucking amateurs lol..why do you two even post? To make the middle kingdom look good through lies and deceit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

you really are a piece of work, you really think I didn't know who Attila is? And you really think we would confuse Mongols with Huns?

Why do you even post to make your Western world look better than it is through stupidity?

 

[Audio]

First Romans until marian didn't even use non landed Romans, second, the barbarian soldiers came later in the empire, when the empire's Romans were depleted and the empire too large. Any mercenaries used could easily be swayed by money and their loyalty and commitment questioned.

The Han dynasty Chinese were mostly all han, which means at any point they can all be loyal soldiers, while it is not so in the Roman army. The Auxiliaries betrayed Rome quite a few times.

These are your assumptions. If someone came with a big enough pot of gold......

As you can see China also had tons of troops, and if you read the reign of Emperor Wudi of Han, you will see that the campaigns he waged are not smaller than any Roman's.

Also he had way more cavalry, at the height he had 450,000 battle ready horses.

Not at all like some members claim the weakness and inexperience of Han dynasty.

I already knew about the number of Chinese troops from before, i probably know more about ancient China then many of your countrymen. Japan too. When i was a kid i was an avid reader of history books, encyclopedia's.
Dont think you can find a post where i talked about inexperience and weaknesses of Han's. Mostly i was only trying to set the record straight.

People including you, talked a lot about Parthians and Surena's great win (which it was-credit must be given) and going by that account they claim Rome was worthless and easily defeatable.
Noone talks about how the Parthian capital was ransacked several times and the whole country plundered after that. How good were Parthians when you look at it from this perspective?

you really are a piece of work, you really think I didn't know who Attila is? And you really think we would confuse Mongols with Huns?

Why do you even post to make your Western world look better than it is through stupidity?

You both bring in Mongols in this topic. They are irelevant to this debate. I know the Bangladeshi posted it out of spite, to show how Asian's can do. You just went along and picked it up to prove some racial point which is again irelevant.

Not my fault if you two can't debate within some sort of limits. I could also say, we could nuke you after WWII....irelevant as it would be.