Roman Empire vs Han Empire

[TheTruth]

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

In movies but not so much in real life. The typical Roman soldier was a midget, and Han especially Northern Han were almost 4 inches taller than them. Likewise Northern Han are at least on par with Caucasoids in physical strength, if not stronger and hardier.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

The Romans had a weak tradition of cavalry. During the battles of Canae and Carrae, flanking cavalry wrought havoc on the Roman legions despite Roman numerical superiority.

The Han dynasty had massive cavalry forces to deal with the Xioung Nu barbarians. Where are Xiong Nu today? Scattered into the wind. People dont even know of them unless they read into Chinese historical accounts.

Another strength of the Han dynasty was the agrucultural output and the digging of irrigation canals. More food is more money and stronger military.

 

[terranMarine]

If you look at Qin's army, the armor the soldiers had to wear was heavy. If you don't have that kind of strength how can you even move/run?

 

[tranquilium]

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.

Didn't I specifically stated there is no "nobleman" in Chinese empire. While there are ranked called equivalent to dukes, count, etc, they are ceremonial titles with no political or military power. Chinese empire, since the time of the first Qin emperor, is run by non-hereditary administrators instead of nobleman. These administrators are also deliberately picked from another province to prevent them from forming their own power group in the area. I also specifically stated a problem with feudal kingdoms in other parts of world has nobleman leading their own power group, thus liable to take advantage of the weakness of the central ruler and cause disarray. The same thing does not really occur to the Chinese empires because the local leaders are administrators who are periodically rotated, thus will not have the power necessary to take advantage of any weakness of the central leadership.

 

[Alan-rei]

this is a pseudo-proposition, no sense to discuss without restriction of time. Ancient great empire always arised around Northern tropic, most of terrain is flat and hilly land, also suitable for large-scale operation of formation combat. Thus, in the cold weapon age, horses is the most important strategic resources. History had proved it for many times. Without producing area of horses, empires' troops were always weak on stamina and alternatively had to turn to passive defense in strategy. Both China and Byzantin are in the same way. So when two ancient empires have enough territory to support their war attrition, the problems will be simplified to compare with horse reserve, therefore, China was powerful during Han and Tang, but weak in Song, Roma was strong during Constantin I and Justinianus I, and when he lost the Asia Minor which is also horse producing area, Roma began to decline. Although the Roman Empire was at its greatest extent at117AD when the Roman phalanx was still popular, they cannot resist the cavalryman of Han, especially with the help of amount of Chinese crossbow, furthermore, most enemies around Roman Emprie at that time were barbaric and unorganized. This opinion can be demonstrated by the terrible defeat of war with Attila. But after the Roman was divided into western and eastern, Byzantin was famous for his heavy cavalry in the fight with fierce Ostrogoths, Arabians and Turks.There comes the real rival.

 

[frequency]

Only fanboys would say this. China would crush Rome like a maggot - Parthians and Huns steamrolled them all day.

You must be the one believe in magic and fairy tales. Poor sad thing.

 

[frequency]

In movies but not so much in real life. The typical Roman soldier was a midget, and Han especially Northern Han were almost 4 inches taller than them. Likewise Northern Han are at least on par with Caucasoids in physical strength, if not stronger and hardier.

You talk like you just came out of the movie. Did you go back in time and saw what they actually look like or did you read a book about it? either way, you're still biased.

 

[Alan-rei]

Why you "lol" ??? Let me tell you this, for every defeat of every nation, there are both internal and external causes. The external cause is from the outside invader while the internal cause is from within ( impotent leaders, corrupt government, social disparity etc..). That is true for every nation, not just China. But any excuse can not get rid of the fact that the nation did fail.

History textbooks from any country are definite garbage. If you want to talk about Chinese History, please at least read one detailed history book first. Especially discuss with Chinese about Chinese history on the internationl forum. Because 99.9% questions had already been discussed and argued in native forum for many times.

So about your question, "the Prince" had already gave a convienced answer by comparing the regimes of mediaeval Turk and France about 500 years ago

"The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it."

"The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it. The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity."

this can be a reference for understanding the ancient China.
that is:
a united and centralized country is always giant and powerful and hard to be conquered but easy to be held.
whereas, a loose confederation is always relatively weak and inter-distrustful and easy to be conquered but hard to be held.

So, according to this logic, we can get that the primary reason of decline of China is internal, the external cause of outside invader is secondary, and this has been verified in almost each dynasty as well, if you are really familar with the Chinese history.
Whereas, most of your statement are DISARRAYED and ILLOGICAL, which prove that you are not only lack of history knowlege , but also lack of ability to understand the information from books

BTW, I have to say the theory of "the prince" is only a general model, but not a formula, and cannot explain every aspects of case of ancient China, because situation are very different between China and Europe. There are too many parameters need to be considered about if you want to adress this function named "politics".

so if you want to talk about Chinses history with Chinese people, do me a favor, go back to library and read patiently, you are too naive to discuss it now.

 

[Solomon2]

I wonder what acted as an inhibitor for the Roman gall for conquest?

Imperialism itself. If an emperor undertook conquest he couldn't travel too far too long from his capital without the risk of internal revolt whereas if he sent a general too far for too long then that army could revolt and march on the capital. Rome's greatest triumphs were under the Republic; repeated revolts demonstrated that military rule fostered its own undoing. Hence the eventual reliance upon Christianity as a central religion to support the legitimacy of the ruler: versions of Christianity that did not envision central control, like the Nestorian, were violently rejected by later Roman rulers.

For me, however, I think the Romans could have conquered Parthia , but they preferred to keep and retain her as a boundary state.

Everything I've read about Rome tells me they would have loved to conquer Parthia, if only to rob it blind.

Sometimes I do wonder how it would have been like had Rome expanded deep into Asia and had a contiguous boundary with the Han Dynasty.

So do I. Certainly trade would have expanded for without the Parthian "take" transport costs would have declined.

But I'm not sure what the Romans had to offer the Chinese other than precious metals and maybe some wine and saffron. Even then the Chinese were keen to hold on to technical and trade secrets (like sericulture) so the flow of knowledge would have been one-way. Combined with the fact that the idea of an emperor checked by a Senate would have offended both Chinese rulers and Chinese tradition, I think it's reasonable to conclude that China would have shut the door almost as soon as it opened.

This line of thinking was explored in detail in Frank S. Stuart's 1941 young adult historical novel, Caravan for China. It's a good read.

 

[Grand Historian]

I find this an exercise in futility neither the Han dynasty nor the Roman empire was static or immune to foreign threats,logistics alone would dictate that a full out invasion of the other's empire would end disastrously.

 

[Shishike]

this kind of topic always be welcome.

i would vote Han, things like solider, armor and military system is far too much,

only reason is crossbow.

 

[Aepsilons]

Imperialism itself. If an emperor undertook conquest he couldn't travel too far too long from his capital without the risk of internal revolt whereas if he sent a general too far for too long then that army could revolt and march on the capital. Rome's greatest triumphs were under the Republic; repeated revolts demonstrated that military rule fostered its own undoing. Hence the eventual reliance upon Christianity as a central religion to support the legitimacy of the ruler: versions of Christianity that did not envision central control, like the Nestorian, were violently rejected by later Roman rulers.

Everything I've read about Rome tells me they would have loved to conquer Parthia, if only to rob it blind.

So do I. Certainly trade would have expanded for without the Parthian "take" transport costs would have declined.

But I'm not sure what the Romans had to offer the Chinese other than precious metals and maybe some wine and saffron. Even then the Chinese were keen to hold on to technical and trade secrets (like sericulture) so the flow of knowledge would have been one-way. Combined with the fact that the idea of an emperor checked by a Senate would have offended both Chinese rulers and Chinese tradition, I think it's reasonable to conclude that China would have shut the door almost as soon as it opened.

This line of thinking was explored in detail in Frank S. Stuart's 1941 young adult historical novel, Caravan for China. It's a good read.

Thanks for the recommendation , Sir. I'll be sure to look into Frank Stuart's work. As for the rest of your input, its greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Aegis DDG]

Who ever said the Han would lose in an naval confrontation with rome is out of their minds. Ever heard of the Battle of Red Cliff during the three kingdom period?

 

[Audio]

Some numbers...

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires - Wikiversity

But I'm not sure what the Romans had to offer the Chinese other than precious metals and maybe some wine and saffron.

Gold. For silk.

For additional info, you can start here, good set of sources at the bottom.

Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grand Historian]

Some numbers...

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires - Wikiversity



Gold. For silk.

For additional info, you can start here, good set of sources at the bottom.

Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wikiversity link is full of nonsense ie for iron output Wagner even states that his guesstimates were not to be taken at face value as recent research in mainland China have shown that there were more existing sites than previously believed.