Rome vs Han China: Who will win?

[IAF]

In terms of a hypothetical set piece slugfest between the armies of Rome (during the age of Caesar) & Han China, discuss whose tactics, training & eqmt will win the day. (Assuming quantity & physical fitness are same for both sides)

Ok..I'll cast the first die: Chinese military was organized around the armor-piercing crossbow, a long range weapon they invented. By alternating fire (front ranks fire, rear ranks reload), these crossbows can penetrate the testudo formation of Romans - negating their vaunted infantry might

[bishop1]

Thats tough to say. As much of a fan as I am of the Roman military system, I dont know how well they could do. Their battles against Parthia didnt end very well as they were all horse archers. They might could do better againt foot archers though, esp with a big calvary force.

[IAF]

Thats tough to say. As much of a fan as I am of the Roman military system, I dont know how well they could do. Their battles against Parthia didnt end very well as they were all horse archers. They might could do better againt foot archers though, esp with a big calvary force.

Yr right... no one will ever know. That's why this is just a discussion of tactics and eqmt

i do admit that when it comes to infantry vs infantry, the result will generally favor the roman legions. Historically, from the Greeks onward, western infantry tend to outshine and defeat oriental infantry.

Hence the key factor to overcoming this is the the Han crossbow - something that will also put enemy calvary at a disadvantaged.

Chinese crossbows were very user-friendly like rifles - unlike normal bows which took months of training to use. This allowed the ancient chinese to leverage numbers and bring a lot more firepower to bear.

[hughdotoh]

In the initial contact, I have a stronger bias in favor of the Chinese, on the following reasons:

1. Technology-wise, the Chinese had an edge with gunpowder, the repeating crossbow, rocket weapons, and superior cavalry using stirrups.
2. Chinese cavalry was highly developed and operated in the same manner as panzers in blitzkrieg, as opposed to the Romans whose cavalry was mainly in support of infantry.


Naturally the Romans could have learned and adopted the Chinese ways to even them out. But the initial contact would always determine which side had better battle-winning stuff than the other.

Romans vs Han China is like pitting the Korean-era US Army against the Gulf War 2 USMC.

[IAF]

Technology-wise, the Chinese had an edge with gunpowder, the repeating crossbow, rocket weapons, and superior cavalry using stirrups.

Though it's documented that gunpowder was invented by alchemists during this period, its true military application (eg firearms & rockets) took place only later in the middle ages... though i believe the ancients might have seen its use in starting easy fires to trap & consume the enemy - a tactic written in the Art of War

[IAF]

Deleted

[M1A2U2]

Romans I believe because of their dedication. There has never been a fighting force, i believe, as large, dedicated, and tightly unified as the Romans. FUrthermore there was never a place that the Romans could not eventually conquer. The Han Dynasty was defeated vy the Trung sisters in Vietnam and sent out. The Han Dynasty was aslo less unifed. The romans wer better at building infastructure like roads and acqueducts etc.

[IAF]

The romans wer better at building infastructure like roads and acqueducts etc.

How true. While the Great Wall was a great feat of engineering, for the Romans massive construction works were the order of the day. In this sense the Romans were far ahead of the Chinese, inventions such as concrete and the arc (seemingly trivial but was in fact extremely important) confirm this.

Romans I believe because of their dedication. There has never been a fighting force, i believe, as large, dedicated, and tightly unified as the Romans.

The fabled tight battle formations of the romans also made them vulnerable - as evidenced in their rout at Carrhae 53BC (albeit under poor leadership too) where parthian archers mowed them down. From this battle came forth the lore of the lost legion

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40286

The inability to deal with calvary was also a major weakness of the Romans who relied mostly on auxiliary forces. When they no longer had cavalry protection their flanks and rear were completely open to cavalry attacks. They wld then form testudo or tortoise formations and thus protect themselves from all sides, but this also left them open for attacks from all sides - esp foes with armor piercing crossbows

Against the Carthaginians, who relied more heavily on cavalry, they initially suffered crushing defeats esp at cannae. In the end it was sheer roman doggedness that eventually overcame that foe not superior weaponry or tactics

Compared to the roman legions, the Han units were more flexible. Just check out the terracotta warriors of the preceding Qin dynasty. You will find a varied orbat:

- infantry armed with swords and spears
- crossbow archers
- calvary
- chariots for commanders and staff officers

Sun Zi (or Sun Tzu) argues for using calvary when the battle is going to be tough and chariots for easy battles. Strategies and tactics should be flexible as well, according to Sun Zi. Of course, this doctrine came from pre-Han period which i'm sure the Han armies absorbed

Not withstanding the vietnamese, remember it was also the Hans who whupped the Hsiung Nu (Huns) who then decided to turn westward and ultimately sacked rome

[bishop1]

Romans I believe because of their dedication. There has never been a fighting force, i believe, as large, dedicated, and tightly unified as the Romans. FUrthermore there was never a place that the Romans could not eventually conquer. The Han Dynasty was defeated vy the Trung sisters in Vietnam and sent out. The Han Dynasty was aslo less unifed. The romans wer better at building infastructure like roads and acqueducts etc.

Actually, you are correct in the fact that the Romans might have been the largest unified force, but the Spartans were the most unified and dedicated soldiers of all time. Being raised as soldiers starting at 7 years old, by the time they were in the ranks they were fighting with people as close as family, the only family theyd really know would be their messmates. Many of the soldiers in the phalanx were lovers as well, or related to each other. There was no bigger honor than dieing for the King or city-state to the Spartan soldier.

The phalanx the Spartans perfected was based on teamwork. The closeness of the Peers was the glue that kept the phalanx together. But, at its height there were only 10,000 Peers to fight, where as the Romans could put 4 or 5x that many in the field.

[Hanism]

I believe the battle terrain plays the most important role in this case. Vietnamese were able to defeat both the Han and Huns (Huns... if my rusty memories is correct) due to the rough mountainous terrain that both armies had to deal with. The Vietnamese were able to use the mountainous landscape to their own defensive advantages and relied on "cunning" tactics.

[IAF]

Actually, you are correct in the fact that the Romans might have been the largest unified force, but the Spartans were the most unified and dedicated soldiers of all time. Being raised as soldiers starting at 7 years old, by the time they were in the ranks they were fighting with people as close as family, the only family theyd really know would be their messmates. Many of the soldiers in the phalanx were lovers as well, or related to each other. There was no bigger honor than dieing for the King or city-state to the Spartan soldier.

The phalanx the Spartans perfected was based on teamwork. The closeness of the Peers was the glue that kept the phalanx together. But, at its height there were only 10,000 Peers to fight, where as the Romans could put 4 or 5x that many in the field.

Correct, the spartans were err.. really tight - enforced as a policy as a matter of fact. That aside, Greek fighters, with their unflinching warrior code and tight formations, hacked their way thru' the enemy.

While this shoulder-to-shoulder headlong charge worked for the Greeks, it did exact a heavy toll. To avoid casualties, the romans modified this style for their infantry. Instead of hacking thru' the enemy but out-manoeuvre them. Centurions trained their men to shift around, in the field of battle, in maniples or handfuls of troops to exploit gaps in the enemy formation - rather than headlong charge

IMO, it is worth noting that save the carthaginians, most of the foes that the roman legions fought against and overcame (during the republic era and age of caesar) were infantry-based as well - which worked to their advantage. Hence that's why no tribe was able to stand up to them for hundreds of years

[IAF]

I believe the battle terrain plays the most important role in this case. Vietnamese were able to defeat both the Han and Huns (Huns... if my rusty memories is correct) due to the rough mountainous terrain that both armies had to deal with. The Vietnamese were able to use the mountainous landscape to their own defensive advantages and relied on "cunning" tactics.

During the Han era, the huns operated mainly from the northwestern region of china in the central asia. But in their incarnate form as mongols more than a thousand years later during kublai khan, they did make an unsuccessful foray into vietnam and got their sorry butt kicked as well ;)

[bishop1]

I didnt mean to imply the Spartans or Greek system would have been any better in the situation you described, most likely the phalanx would be torn apart before they even reached the enemy if they faced a force made up of nothing but archers, I was just putting in my opinion that the Spartans were the most unified fighting force.

[hughdotoh]

So let's put one crack Roman legion and one crack outfit of Han on a flat plain, say somewhere in Hungary or in Mongolia.

Hans had a bigger complement of cavalry, equipped with stirrups and Mongol bows, along with lances and scimitars. Their infantry would carry scimitars and halberds, while archers would as well be equipped with crossbows. Everyone wears leather and silk armor.

Romans have their smaller complement of cavalry without stirrups, infantry with pilum and gladius and the shield. Archers with their recurve bows.

In this initial meet, the Romans would lose, because they lack long range weapons in the first place. The Hans have more weapons that can kill from a distance, whether as missiles or as hand-held weapons. The Han cavalry with their stirrups would allow the rider to have a longer reach from his horse and cut an infantryman down from a safer distance.

The Romans would hold their line well in defense, but they would be whittled down by the Han long-arms. Eventually they must lose.

[IAF]

I didnt mean to imply the Spartans or Greek system would have been any better in the situation you described, most likely the phalanx would be torn apart before they even reached the enemy if they faced a force made up of nothing but archers, I was just putting in my opinion that the Spartans were the most unified fighting force.

my mistake, man :)

[TheBelgian]

Thats tough to say. As much of a fan as I am of the Roman military system, I dont know how well they could do. Their battles against Parthia didnt end very well as they were all horse archers. They might could do better againt foot archers though, esp with a big calvary force.

Hehe well i dont think you can use the example of Parthia very accurately here. They had an amateur like Crassus leading them. Had they been controled by Caesar, Pompey or Augustus, that wouldprobably have turned out very differently.

Now, in this scenario, it is of course important to say where the fight would take place. Rome is at much more of an advantage when fighting away from home than the Han empire is, because of Roman roads and the mobility level their army achieved after Gaius Marius's reforms. They would move much swifter and be supplied much more fluently than the Han forces.
But lets just, for the sake of argument, go with this crack roman legion and Han outfit somewhere on a neutral plain. One battle, no supplies. Their equipment has been described here at lenght, so i'll not go into it. One thing is a misconception though. Eveyrone seems to say that the Romans had no long range weaponry. True, the Hans had better archers, with longer range crossbows and composite bows. But lets not forget the Roman artillery that inevitably accompanied a legion. I feel that the Roman Onagers and Ballistas would go a long way to break up this less disciplined chinese force. I'm sure that desite the breakup of their formations, the Han army would still charge. However, i think the disipline of the Roman legion would withstand an infantry charge quite easily. The problem would be the Han cavalry. Well, despite thier shorter range, the Roamn archers could pick off a lot of the cavalry as they charged. The Roman spearmen (be they triarii or auxilia) would be able to seriously thin out the cavalry as they charged. Then, it would come down to the discipline. There, Rome has the upper hand. In the battle i have described, the Han forces would already have been brought into disarray by the Roamn artillery. Seeing you comrades around you being impaled by a speeding ballista shaft, or blasted into a sea of flames by a roman onager, would be a serious blow to the Han soldier's moral. This chaotic charge would have stood no chance against the disciplined Roman cohorts. Now, when the cavalry does make it to the Romans, they might have a problem. However, i feel confident that, if the Roman calary were to flank the Han cavalry while these were already bogged down fighting the infantry, then their moral would be smashed, and they would quickly flee. Of course, this is a completely hypothetical scenario. I know a lot about the Roman legions, and not that much about the Han army. But,based on my knowledge, and if using a tactic similar to the one i have outlined, then i feel Rome has a good chance of emerging victorious.

[IAF]

Well thought out, Belgian
:)


Anywayz, for those of you who want to have a better idea of the heavy-duty lethality of the Han crossbow, do get hold of the DVD 'Hero' starring Jet Li. There's a scene where Qin troops used man-portable (one firer and one loader) and cart-mounted crossbows as WMDs to destroy a city. Those aren't your Legola bow and arrows

[hughdotoh]

Not sure what dynasty it was, but the Chinese had a repeating magazine-fed crossbow.

They even had an early form of MLRS.

[IAF]

Not sure what dynasty it was, but the Chinese had a repeating magazine-fed crossbow.

They even had an early form of MLRS.

That would be the Qin dynasty. You can see the replicas in action in the movie 'Hero'

[TheBelgian]

Hehe lol i just fought a battle in Rome Total War ( woot ) using the Chinese Tsin army mod. A Roman legion controlled by the computer, consisting of 8 eagle legionary cohorts, 4 praetorian cavalry, 2 auxilia, four archers, one balista and one catapult cohorts, facing a Tsin army consisting of Spear phalanxes, heavy crossbow archers, chariot archers, heavy chariots, heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry. The romans had about 500 more men than the chinese. The Romans were slaughtered, totally massacred :P

Not really a very scientific method of solving the question, but it was fun hehe :lol:

[IAF]

Hehe lol i just fought a battle in Rome Total War ( woot ) using the Chinese Tsin army mod. A Roman legion controlled by the computer, consisting of 8 eagle legionary cohorts, 4 praetorian cavalry, 2 auxilia, four archers, one balista and one catapult cohorts, facing a Tsin army consisting of Spear phalanxes, heavy crossbow archers, chariot archers, heavy chariots, heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry. The romans had about 500 more men than the chinese. The Romans were slaughtered, totally massacred :P

Not really a very scientific method of solving the question, but it was fun hehe :lol:

dude i gotta get that game!

[TheBelgian]

haha yeah man. Its the freaking sweetest game ever woot

[Stormy]

I would have to throw in my towel in this one, Because it will be hard to decide which one of these factions will win in a skirmish.. Both Roman and the Chinese had their days where they lost and won.



Please check out our mod Europa Barbarorum if you are into R:TW.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?s=bfd20c3f77ffb5e490a8adcb31cb1f09&f=70

[Seiyuuki]

Information of Roman military at the time is quiet well known, so shedding some light on the Han Dynasty.

A post from the History Channel forum on the same subject...

Drawing on ancient texts, from Western classical poets to official Chinese court histories, Homer Dubs, a professor at Oxford University, proposed the only speculative account of military encounter between the Romans and Chinese. According to Dubs, when the Parthians defeated the Romans at the Battle of Carrhae, thousands of Roman troops were taken prisoner, a portion of whom were moved to Central Asia to help Parthia guard its eastern frontier. A number of the Roman soldiers ended up as mercenaries in the part of Central Asia controlled by the Huns. During the period of Han dynasty expansion, the Chinese army decisively defeated the Huns and their Romans mercenaries at their encampment somewhere near today's Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan. The account described the Huns' batter formation and citadel very similar to those employed in Rome. The victorious Chinese brought home Roman POWs, thus creating a historical puzzle that some Chinese are related to descendants of Romans.

Contrary to popular belief, the Chinese armies at the time were not made up of unorganized peasants. Chinese diplomatic and military tactics at the time were likely the most advanced in the world and professional forces were employed going back to the Shang Yang reform era - which likely contributed to Qin superiority over other kingdoms. In terms of military experience, the Warring States Period - the period from the 5th century BC to the unification of China by Qin in 221 BC - saw constant military conflicts and annexation with the 7 major kingdoms. There were Chinese generals and battles as impressive as any empire. The Chinese often combined soft and hard power, from its extensive network of tributary states to the application of hegemon.

From another thread on another forum about the same subject...

Han infantry had both heavily armed and lightly armed serving for different purposes. Han did have big shields to prevent arrow assaults these shields are perhaps bigger and thicker than the scutoms and they're made of metal opposed to plywood scutoms. Although these are usually used to prevent crossbow archers from getting hit, while the heavy infantry certainly had large shields as well.

Close formation in the Medditeranean only took such an important role because the missile weapons during that time has little effect against these tight formations. Yet there is no power bows in the west at that time, thus these formations continued to exist. The Han army faught in looser formation just against the arrow assaults, the major weapon of the Han army is the crossbow thats why the Han army depend far more on fire power than shock. The crossbow also had a great power in stopping cavalry charge of the time with the exception of sudden unexpected attacks by the cavalry, a head on charge is not of great effect during this time. Close formation gives more close combat damage but is very vulnerable to missile since they are a packed target and slow too, but the Medditeranean missiles at that time were not powerful enough to give heavy damage to these formation, on the contrast the Han army had power bows long before the Europeans used their crossbows and longbows in large scale.

The only reason that later battles in the central plains changed to close formation is because the rise of fully armed heavy cavalry due to stirrup which reduce the efficiency of the cavalry. None of these are used at this time in war thus there is few cavalry powerful enough to break through the crossbow barrage of the Han army. The cataphracts might do the job but their shock power is still not adequete compared to those with stirrups. While the only tactic that is effective at this time against these were rapid and unexpected lightning attacks done by the cavalry in hit and run style which is not some tactics that the Roman army is well known for.

Here is a quote from Needham's book on Chinese missiles and siege. "At the conclusion of this section we shall have something to say about the comparison between Chinese and European military history. Military theoreticians have found it possible to make distinction between periods when the main emphasis is on the shock of troops in hand to hand, and other periods when the main emphasis is on throwing of a cloud of projectile weapons....In armoured or shock periods, reliance is placed on massed advance and hope of individual soldier is that their armour will protect him while his weapon will injure others. In unarmoured or projectileperiods dependence is placed on mobility and firepower, while hope of individual soldier is that the projectile he fires will hit others but that he will be avoid those fired by them....In china neither the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies....Chinese soldiers are primarily archers, and mounted more often than on foot.....It can hardly have been a coincidence that when a new propulsive forcewas discovered astonishingly more powerful than the bent spring of bows, it was China that it received all the most brilliant adaptations of youth, and there that it reached such maturity as to spread rapidly over the rest of the civilised world."

It indicate that China's missile is so far in advance that the western method of heavy armament and shock as dominant weapon over missiles never took place in chinese warfare because they are vulnerable to the powerful missiles. And the close formation and heavy armament would just be a hinderance against these.

And here is a comparison bewteen the ancient Chinese siege and artillery with that of the classical west in which it show clearly that the classical Greco Roman catapult and artillery was vastly inferior to that of the East Asian ones in both the ballista as well as the stone launcher. The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had a average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards. Not to mention the vastly simpler design of the eastern ballista that makes it the more efficient. While the sling and torsion catapults (onagers used mainly for sieges threw stones of roughly 50 pounds and maximum some 175 pounds on occasinal cases never more than 160 yards). The ancient eastern manned trebuchet was light years ahead sending missiles up to 275 pounds from 80-190 yards as max. while the fixed counterweight had a somewhat heavier missile and longer range on average but was merely a improvment on the normal trebuchet and has many set backs just like the arbalest is to the normal hand primed crossbows. All this is not including the other forms of field artillery in china not seen in the west. This include the Lien nu or multiple firing bolts, this is rarely seen on western fields and only in occasion which merely two bolts were delivered at once opposed to the vastly more numbers in the asian form that could deliver up to 10 at once. Second is the Zhuang zi nu which has a number of spring constant which could impart their stored energy to the same projectile giving far greater damage. This type was never used in the west.

Notice that the classical west used the torsion type of catapult while its the east that first introduced the swave type generating far more power.

[oldsoak]

If these two armies are to fight - where would it take place and when ? Who has the most favourable position, who has the shortest supply routes, do they collide at their heights of power ? Not cut and dried. Long range weapons are great - so long as your troops dont get into the kill zone - which once you start mixing it might be pretty vague.

[IAF]

Just an aside - anyone familiar enough with ancient chinese military history know if there's a chinese equivalent of the elite 10th Legion in ancient chinese military lore?

For Total War fans, i do encourage you to read "Caesar's Legion" - a splendidly researched and riveting story that follows the trials and triumphs of Julius Caesar's glorious Legio X - the most famous legion of its time

[Para]

The Roman Army could destroy a Chinese one day and find it's self facing another the next day even bigger. This is the sort of thread that is all ifs and buts which will wind up no where.

[mingrady]

Chinese Han army would win hands down.

Just think about it: Attila the Hun brought down the Roman empire. And where did the Huns come from?

The Huns were roaming the grassland in china's west and north, ouside of the Great Wall, but they were driven toward europe by Han army's devastating military compaigns. They found the roman empire was a much easier place to loot

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[TheBelgian]

Hmmm, over simplifying things a bit there. You seem to be foretting the Wisigoth and Ostrogoth invasions. And of course, the argument can be made that Rome was never really defeated, but that they continued on as the holy roman empire. But anyways, we're getting off topic...

[bishop1]

Yeah, very true, by that time the Empire was in shambles, but it is true about Attila, he was a vicious mofo.