Roman Empire vs Han Empire

[Aegis DDG]

Here an stats between the Roman Empire at it's height and the Han empire at it's most powerful.
---------------------------------Rome------------------------------Han
Standing army size----------400,000----------------------------800,000
Horse reserve----------------80,000-----------------------------400,000
Minimum required training----one season------------------------one year
Training required for----------soldiers-----------------every male upon age of 23(meaning over 10 million trained reserves)
Typical general's career------politician--------------------------- military leader
Weapons----------------mostly wrought iron---------------mostly steel by E.Han
Iron industry--------------bloomeries-------------------------blast furnace
Furthest campaign------------890 km (Trajan)------------------1,850 km (Li Guangli)
Government revenue -----3 billion liters*(at its height) ------6 billion liters*(at its height)

 

[BuddhaPalm]

The Han defeated the Huns, who burned Rome.

 

[powastick]

Romans would lose.
1. Metallurgy Han was better.
2. Romans never fought foot drawn crossbow that would out range their archers and penetrate their armor. Crossbow are easier to train and field.
3. Romans never fought Ge, hooking spears.
4. West tend to win from battlefield tactics and formation, Chinese would cheat a lot. No gentleman, war is life and death. Your food supply? Its on fire.
5. Han could draft up to 20 million to reinforce their front line.
6. Han had better Calvary tradition.
7. Testudo has a fatal flaw. Look up on Battle of Carrhae.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Pfft! What an asinine comparison
The Persian civilization will beat any lesser civy 100 times over!

Because Cataphract beyotch!

 

[powastick]

Light calvary and archer calvary beats Cataphract. Mongols prove it.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Light calvary and archer calvary beats Cataphract. Mongols prove it.

Save it. I'm trying to show how stupid it is to compare or pit ancient civilization together.

 

[BuddhaPalm]

Light calvary and archer calvary beats Cataphract. Mongols prove it.

Ming gunpowder dominates Mongol steppe barbarians.

 

[nguyen]

China was very powerful, no doubt about it. But the problem was, since her body was too big, she could not mobilize all of its force against a particular enemy at a time. So a sharp penetrating cavalry corp running straight into the Chinese capital can deliver a fatal strike to the whole empire. Losing the capital, the rest would fallen into mass disarray and could be conquered part by part.

 

[Aegis DDG]

China was very powerful, no doubt about it. But the problem was, since her body was too big, she could not mobilize all of its force against a particular enemy at a time. So a sharp penetrating cavalry corp running straight into the Chinese capital can deliver a fatal strike to the whole empire. Losing the capital, the rest would fallen into mass disarray and could be conquered part by part.

Actually the Han Chinese had an better system of mobilization than the romans and transitioning conscripts back to civilians quickly. The Han went full retard against the Xiognu compared to Rome wars against the Germanics.

 

[j20]

China was very powerful, no doubt about it. But the problem was, since her body was too big, she could not mobilize all of its force against a particular enemy at a time. So a sharp penetrating cavalry corp running straight into the Chinese capital can deliver a fatal strike to the whole empire. Losing the capital, the rest would fallen into mass disarray and could be conquered part by part.

古代中国的外部威胁永远来自北方，每一次打败游牧民族后，就把他们往中亚、欧洲那边赶，北方地理环境又不合适农耕，两三百年后，又有一个游牧民族发展起来
The ancient China external threats always from the north, every beat nomads,put them to the Central Asian, European side out of the north, the geographical environment is not suitable for farming, two hundred or three hundred years later, another nomadic development

 

[Aepsilons]

The Han had the man power, the resources, and cohesive centralized government. The Romans had adaptive legions that oculd adapt to a host of threats as seen in their capabilities in defeating Greek Phalanx, Carthaginian Elephants, Egyptian Chariots, and to an extent, German and Celtic Archers. Naval wise, the Romans would probably come out victorious. Land wise ? I'd give victory to the Han Dynasty.

 

[Aepsilons]

China was very powerful, no doubt about it. But the problem was, since her body was too big, she could not mobilize all of its force against a particular enemy at a time. So a sharp penetrating cavalry corp running straight into the Chinese capital can deliver a fatal strike to the whole empire. Losing the capital, the rest would fallen into mass disarray and could be conquered part by part.

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.

 

[Solomon2]

The Han had the man power, the resources, and cohesive centralized government. The Romans had adaptive legions that oculd adapt to a host of threats as seen in their capabilities in defeating Greek Phalanx, Carthaginian Elephants, Egyptian Chariots, and to an extent, German and Celtic Archers. Naval wise, the Romans would probably come out victorious. Land wise ? I'd give victory to the Han Dynasty.

Doubt the Romans could win in a straight battle against the Han. However, the Romans would likely try to recruit local allies and auxiliaries and equipment before choosing to engage in such a battle. Such things were key to Rome winning battles in Gaul, Spain, Greece, and North Africa.

It is a bit surprising the two empires never came into direct contact. At one time they each had outposts in southwest Asia that were less than a hundred miles apart. The explanation is that the Parthians, who were key intermediaries of the Rome-China trade, successfully kept Rome and China from directly communicating with each other for hundreds of years, to Parthia's own profit.

 

[tranquilium]

China was very powerful, no doubt about it. But the problem was, since her body was too big, she could not mobilize all of its force against a particular enemy at a time. So a sharp penetrating cavalry corp running straight into the Chinese capital can deliver a fatal strike to the whole empire. Losing the capital, the rest would fallen into mass disarray and could be conquered part by part.

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.

 

[frequency]

Roman Empire hands down times 3.