OK, Inspired by BOTP's thread on Hannibal vs Alexander. Who do you think will win in a war between ancient China and ancient Rome if they were to start off in their own country and try to conquer the other nation. In 200BC Both were regional powers, and both had about the same population.

no way! China had a larger population then the Roman Empire at this time. Go China!

Tons of population, sure. But the Chinese relied on levy armies, not at all like the proffessional legions of Ancient Rome, baby!:cooool:

I see a big debate between Xen and alex and the horizon.;)

China. They had superior strategy, and probably tactics as well.

China would win, hands down.

Rome may have had professional armies, but didn't China have primitive firearms? maybe not in 200BC though... can someone confirm? It would be cool if someone could come up with a list of the strengths of the two empires... I'd be interested in seeing that.

Strengths of the Two Empires?

OK:


China:

Has a long warfaring tradition. Goes back thousands of years.

Generally has the better Generals, They had studied the tactics of old, and were superb, whereas the Romans met only inferior armies and mostly just crushed the enemy with better armies.

Bigger Population.

Better Cavalry.

Good Communications: drums, gongs, and signal flags.


Rome:

Better motivated

Better Infantry

Good Signals: Horns and Trumpets and all.

Better Organized.





In short, it would be close. But I see a smaller roman army attacking the Chinese and trying to break their center, while the Chinese win on the flanks with better cavalry and crush the romans from the sides and flanks. Sort of like Cannae.

The Romans simply did not face an opponent like China, they had almost always faced worse opponents.

I see a big debate between Xen and alex and the horizon.;)

Your wish is my command, now i just have to wait until Xen responds, but he won't soon cuz of the hurricane in Flordia.

Back on topic: At this time, 200 BC, before the formation of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Republic still existing with a *corrupt* government which was barely able to govern the lands it held where the law that ruled was the strong ruled the weak. However in China, the Han Dynasty was in full bloom, it's economy was great, there were no great famines, the cities were well maintained, the borders well defended, the law that ruled here was everyone has a chance(aside from the ones in the rich families). As you can see, would you rather live as a Middle Class man in 200 BC Rome, or a middle class man in 200 BC Han Dynasty?

Depending what period ?

Lets say the high of power for both Rome and China both possessing there most advanced weapons and armies.

Open field warfare and seige warfare were both very advanced at this time. China edges out with technology aspect. They had crossbows, cannons, effective plate amour, Horse archers, Effective seige weapons similar to the romans. IIRC te chinese also employed a type of "greek fire"

Romans possesd a much better flexable command structure. Fight much better in formations and developed different type of sophicated tactics. Romans were great building defences.

I can forsee a long stalemate and eventual attrition of the roman empire.

Romans were great building defences.

So you don't think The Great Wall of China built during the Qin Dynasty wasn't a good defence? Okay, even though the present wall was built by the Ming, there were defensive walls built by the Qin and Han Dynasties to help keep the steppe nomads out.

Depending what period ?

China edges out with technology aspect. They had crossbows, cannons, effective plate amour, Horse archers, Effective seige weapons similar to the romans. IIRC te chinese also employed a type of "greek fire"


what? cannon, we are talking about 200bc. plate armour, no. chinese greek fire was a copy of the orginal greek fire of byzantium--not invented till @680ad

Why fight? I say the Chinese general should just march up to Korea and produce a baby which will grow up to be a great general. The Roman general should sail over to the Aztec Empire and do the same thing. Then both of them should go down to Africa and make love to the beautiful african women. Then their offsprings should mate, and therefore producing the greatest STRATEGIST and possibly the greatest human that ever lived :smug:. Isn't that better for everyone?

Seriously, I think the ancient Chinese army would beat the ancient Roman army. They had the crossbow and they're not afraid to use it. Even though the Romans had battle-harden soldiers, the Chinese had battle-wisen strategists that came from centuries of warfare.

Edit: Did the Chinese army have shields?

the Chinese army had shields.

So you don't think The Great Wall of China built during the Qin Dynasty wasn't a good defence? Okay, even though the present wall was built by the Ming, there were defensive walls built by the Qin and Han Dynasties to help keep the steppe nomads out.

In many parts the wall was often made not of stone but of mudbricks and other handly material. It was a huge engineering feat in itself.
Iam sure the romans mounted ballista onto towers. had numerous and ingenious obsticales and boody traps.

what? cannon, we are talking about 200bc. plate armour, no. chinese greek fire was a copy of the orginal greek fire of byzantium--not invented till @680ad

ops missed the date period

well by 10 ce, both countrys had about 60 million people living in them, so population isn't a matter. Also the city of Rome itself would be much grander than any Chinese city. I don't know about 200 bce, but during the age of Augutas, the Romans would have whooped the Chinese arse.

The way I see it, if the terrain was flat, and the two armys had the same size, the Roman's superior training, weapons, and flexability would have defeated the Chinese forces. neither would have seen the tactics of the enemy used anywhere else before, so it would be tricky. I'd sain the Legions would prevail just as they had against almost everything else.

Iam sure the romans mounted ballista onto towers. had numerous and ingenious obsticales and boody traps.

In 200 BC? if it is, i concede my point, but while the Great wall or parts of it was made of mud, the city walls were well made of stone.

china had the greatest strategist in history: Zhuge Liang.

china wins hands down.

not in 200BC and Zhuge Liang is overrated.

China will still win though.

Am I the first one to agree with Amenhotep and actually give professional armies some credit?

Levies have an acient history of colossal failures when facing a professional army. Macchiaveli went as far as to say that an army of levies is worth very close to nothing.

China was never the military superpower that Rome was. So I must say Rome. Of course Rome would never be able to fight the chinese in China, though.

Though it would be impossible for the people to actually fight I would have to go for Rome. Rome did at its peak had sixty million people and a very strong military.

Where would the likely battleground between these two states be? Somewhere in Central Asia along the silk road? The conditions there might be good to know - one side might have more of an advantage.

The battle of Thermopylae just goes to show you that a proffesional army wins over a levy army any day. 300 Professionally-trained Spartans slaughtered thousands of Persian levys. Of course, the Spartans did have a terrrain advantage, but come now, it's 300 Spartans against 25,000 Persians. And it may have been won by the Spartans had that one guy not told Persia the secret route going round the mountain and behind the Spartans...

Here is a discussions about the Chinese and Romans at their peak. Both sides make wonderful points:

http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1415&st=0

It seems the outcome would be rather like Carharre (sp?) in light of that. Chinese cavlary would simply surround the legions and peppers them with arrows until they were too decimated to fight on.

It seems the outcome would be rather like Carharre (sp?) in light of that. Chinese cavlary would simply surround the legions and peppers them with arrows until they were too decimated to fight on.

the romans fought the parthians and persians many times but theres was only 1 carharre, don't assume every battle between roman and cavalry would end that way.

No, it was not a certainty, but it could very likely happen, especially if it was open terrain. And remember the Romans, in spite of all of their efforts, never managed to hold onto Mesopotamia.

erm, Trajan (not sure about this) conquered it and wanted to hold it (I'm sure he would have managed), but his successor Hadrian abandoned it freely (because he wanted to concentrate on other areas). (Or vice versa, I'm not sure at the moment, ant atm, I don't care about names... :)).
Important is that the Romans could have holded Mesopotamia, if they wanted to.

Just my two rapps (swiss cents... :)).

mfG mitsho

But could the Romans have diverted enough troops from the Empire to fight the Chinese? Wouldn't they have been left with thin defences all over the Empire? Wouldn't a 'barbarian' breakthrough have occurred somewhere along the Rhine or Danube?

erm, Trajan (not sure about this) conquered it and wanted to hold it (I'm sure he would have managed), but his successor Hadrian abandoned it freely (because he wanted to concentrate on other areas). (Or vice versa, I'm not sure at the moment, ant atm, I don't care about names... :)).
Important is that the Romans could have holded Mesopotamia, if they wanted to.

Just my two rapps (swiss cents... :)).

mfG mitsho

I doubt they could have held Mesopotamia. The Parthians simply had too good and too many men to allow that.

But could the Romans have diverted enough troops from the Empire to fight the Chinese? Wouldn't they have been left with thin defences all over the Empire? Wouldn't a 'barbarian' breakthrough have occurred somewhere along the Rhine or Danube?

The same could be said about the Chinese. While the army's away the Mongols will play :evil:
Not too likley in 200 Bc as it would be 1400years before Gengis Khan, but Atilla isn't alive yet either, and the visigoths and vandals probably arren't organized yet. But with the right leader, a barbarian horde can crush the most organized force. It happened to Rome and China, Just China caved and paid tribute.

and China lived to tell the tale in the later Tang Dynasty, while the Romans ceased to exist in it's entire form, even with the dwindiling east, while the tang fought all the way to Central Asia.

and China lived to tell the tale in the later Tang Dynasty, while the Romans ceased to exist in it's entire form, even with the dwindiling east, while the tang fought all the way to Central Asia.

Like I said, China caved under the threat of barbarian attack and gave them everything they wanted. Then Gengis re-directed his attention to Persia and Europe. I was just pointing out that poth empires had their armys mauled By barbs, China was just lucky that they werren't the main taget.

Like I said, China caved under the threat of barbarian attack and gave them everything they wanted. Then Gengis re-directed his attention to Persia and Europe. I was just pointing out that poth empires had their armys mauled By barbs, China was just lucky that they werren't the main taget.I can't believe in the amt of ignorance in this thread... :p

China had always been the main target of the nomads of the steppes, simply because it's the richest and the nearest. It's the losers amongst the nomadic tribes who were driven westwards, eventually to plague Europe and the Mid-east. :p

And the Chinese fought hard; didn't just 'cave in'. And responded not just militarily; also with diplomacy, alliances, gifts, marriages with Imperial princesses and the like.

And at different time periods, the power balance betw the nomads and the Chinese changed, so you'll have to be specific about which time period you're referring to.

well by 10 ce, both countrys had about 60 million people living in them, so population isn't a matter. Also the city of Rome itself would be much grander than any Chinese city. I don't know about 200 bce, but during the age of Augutas, the Romans would have whooped the Chinese arse.

The way I see it, if the terrain was flat, and the two armys had the same size, the Roman's superior training, weapons, and flexability would have defeated the Chinese forces. neither would have seen the tactics of the enemy used anywhere else before, so it would be tricky. I'd sain the Legions would prevail just as they had against almost everything else.While the Romans had iron weopans, the Chinese actually had ones made of steel, and Chinese infantrymen used crossbows extensively... Plus they'd extensive cavalry forces (due to the eternal wars with the steppe tribes).

And the Chinese were more wily at deception, spying, diplomacy, signals, support.

what? cannon, we are talking about 200bc. plate armour, no. chinese greek fire was a copy of the orginal greek fire of byzantium--not invented till @680adIndeed, no firearms. Not sure about the plate armor one... I know Chinese troops wore some kind of iron armor of square plates sewn together.

The Chinese were far superior in metallurgy than anything in the West. ;)

While I think this comparison thread is rather pointless, since the two never met militarily, I'd let this go on. But no flaming pls. ;)

ahh, XIII, you bring Chinese knowledge back to these ppl who do not have much knowledge of China, i Salute you!

not in 200BC and Zhuge Liang is overrated.

Too true, Zhuge Liang's success is vastly overrated in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel...

While the Romans had iron weopans, the Chinese actually had ones made of steel,

Actually, I believe Romans used steel weapons aswell, but I'm not entirely sure about that, although it is true that China is superior to the west in metallurgy, I don't think the gap is large enough to provide a huge advantage. Chinese used scale mail armor made out of iron scales i believe..

And the Chinese were more wily at deception, spying, diplomacy, signals, support.

I would argue against that, the Romans were quite deceptive themselves...

Divide et Imperia

And the Chinese fought hard; didn't just 'cave in'. And responded not just militarily; also with diplomacy, alliances, gifts, marriages with Imperial princesses and the like.

This was the downfall of the Roman empire, they gave the barbarians so many gifts and land, after their empire had been weakened interally by so much that it just collapsed, Romans just simply didn't have enough to sustain itself anymore, much less to the barbarians, while the Chinese were still exceptionally rich, with many resources. Barbarians werent the only reason Rome fell.

In war, I would believe that the Romans would have some success because of their armies being better trained, and better motivated, but Chinese weapons such as the crossbow and cavalry with stirrup would also prove very dangerous, and the fact that the Chinese generally fielded larger armies, but all this speculation is ridiculous, they are thousands of miles away...

They both have their pros and cons.

China: Incredibly wealthy (Chinese traded to the west things that they did not need much, whilst the Romans paid tons of gold for these luxuries, leading to a VERY large inbalance in the trade. Chinese didnt need roman goods such as wine, furs, etc. but roman demand for Silk, especially, was huge) and large armies, with armor piercing crossbow and cavalry stirrup.

Rome: well trained armies and good discipline

Rome: well trained armies and good discipline

The Chinese army wasn't exactly poorly trained either. They didn't recruit from nobel blood, but they did train whoever they recruit extensively (plus they sing really cool songs when they train "let's get down to business, to defeat the hun. Did they send me daughters when I ask for sons...."). The Chinese didn't start training their warrior at age 7, but the learning curve is not linear, rather it plateaus at a certain point. So 15 years of training isn't going to be 5 times better than 3 years of training. So when it comes down to is Chinese strategy vs Roman tactics.

Too true, Zhuge Liang's success is vastly overrated in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel... Romance is a novel...

I am not even sure if Zhuge Liang is a real person. :lol:

Actually, I believe Romans used steel weapons aswell, but I'm not entirely sure about that, although it is true that China is superior to the west in metallurgy, I don't think the gap is large enough to provide a huge advantage. Chinese used scale mail armor made out of iron scales i believe..The Chinese were producing iron and steel in much vaster quantities, using a process akin to the Bessmer (sp?) steel production technique (invented by Bessmer more than 1000 years after the Chinese...). The Romans might or might not have steel weopans (I lean on not), but the Chinese certainly outproduced them.

In war, I would believe that the Romans would have some success because of their armies being better trained, and better motivated, but Chinese weapons such as the crossbow and cavalry with stirrup would also prove very dangerous, and the fact that the Chinese generally fielded larger armies, but all this speculation is ridiculous, they are thousands of miles away...I don't think the Chinese had stirrups yet at this age... Perhaps a superior horse-harness, but not stirrups...

China: Incredibly wealthy (Chinese traded to the west things that they did not need much, whilst the Romans paid tons of gold for these luxuries, leading to a VERY large inbalance in the trade. Chinese didnt need roman goods such as wine, furs, etc. but roman demand for Silk, especially, was huge) It was the middlemen who earned most of those gold. You know, like the Parthians. ;) The Chinese saw little of those gold...

The Chinese army wasn't exactly poorly trained either. They didn't recruit from nobel blood, We don't have nobles in Imperial China - the Qin did away with most of those when they conquered all the other States and imposed their uniform, centralized bureaucacy on them. Those nobles that remained were eventually dealt with, by the succeeding Han.

but they did train whoever they recruit extensively (plus they sing really cool songs when they train "let's get down to business, to defeat the hun. Did they send me daughters when I ask for sons...."). The Chinese didn't start training their warrior at age 7, but the learning curve is not linear, rather it plateaus at a certain point. So 15 years of training isn't going to be 5 times better than 3 years of training. So when it comes down to is Chinese strategy vs Roman tactics.The Chinese forces were mostly of conscripts, backed by some permanent imperial formations. A conscript was usually expected to serve for only about 3 years. Doubtless many probably served longer, esp those in the frontiers.

The wars against the Xiong-nu were very vicious and to the death. Either the Han Chinese cavalrymen would kill all the Xiong-nu they ran across in their kill-all, burn-all campaigns into the steppes, or vice versa.

PS Chinese citizens didn't like to be soldiers, esp in the last 1000 years (Song era and after). We don't look on war as something glorious and valiant.

There were steel weapons all over the world. The people just didn't know that they were using steal. I have no prove of the Romans, but I heard that the Indians used and here in Switzerland, in La Tène (the Latene-era is named after this place, I was camping there this summer :)) they've found around 200 'steel' swords. 'steels' because they hadn't the technique the chinese had, but did this by accident. :)

So, if the celts had them, it's likely the romans also did.

mfG mitsho

Romance is a novel...

I am not even sure if Zhuge Liang is a real person. :lol:

The novel is based on historical records. Zhege Liang did exist, as did the nation he essentially help defend. There were several embellshments of course, including the famous "Empty City Tactic", where he supposedly held off a whole army from an undefended city by opening the city gates and playing [some form of ancient Chinese string instrument whose name I do not know] over it.

PS Chinese citizens didn't like to be soldiers, esp in the last 1000 years (Song era and after). We don't look on war as something glorious and valiant.
Yes. And I blame the scholars! Things would have been so different if Chinese society had remained the same as that of the militaristic Tang, or the Han, or the Qin, or even Warring States. :(
The novel is based on historical records. Zhege Liang did exist, as did the nation he essentially help defend. There were several embellshments of course, including the famous "Empty City Tactic", where he supposedly held off a whole army from an undefended city by opening the city gates and playing [some form of ancient Chinese string instrument whose name I do not know] over it.
And it worked only because the enemy commander then was the smart but paranoid Sima Yi, who thought it a trap since no one could possibly be that careless as to be caught with an empty city and his army miles away, much less someone of Zhuge Liang's reputation. A lesser commander would have more likely thrown all caution to the wind and yelled: "Charge!" :lol:

There were steel weapons all over the world. The people just didn't know that they were using steal. I have no prove of the Romans, but I heard that the Indians used and here in Switzerland, in La Tène (the Latene-era is named after this place, I was camping there this summer :)) they've found around 200 'steel' swords. 'steels' because they hadn't the technique the chinese had, but did this by accident. :)

So, if the celts had them, it's likely the romans also did.

mfG mitsho

If there was steel weapons all over the world, why did the Europeans had to create that Bessemer thing to create Steel? Why, the Romans did not have steel weaponry.

Bessemer is just a method to incresae both quality and quanty of steel producing.

Before that, nearly all civs use the old method form the mid-east to produce steel.
Just by beating the hearted iron. In Han dynasty, it was so called "100 beated steel", and was replaced by other method soon BEFORE the Song dynasty, which massive steel producting had be recorded.

But still, even I belive that Han had a larger amount of steel output, I don't belive that affects reslut largely. The amounts of steel used as weaspon were just too small for both Han and Roman. However, I tend to belive Chinese would win the war, well...

@alex994 as I said, they did it by accident, they didn't intend to do it. And therefore, it wasn't a big steel producing industry, but rather some steel here and some steel there...

mfG mitsho

And it worked only because the enemy commander then was the smart but paranoid Sima Yi, who thought it a trap since no one could possibly be that careless as to be caught with an empty city and his army miles away, much less someone of Zhuge Liang's reputation. A lesser commander would have more likely thrown all caution to the wind and yelled: "Charge!" :lol:

The more credible theory claims that Sima Yi wasn't (completely) paranoid, but refused to attack because of a much more mature and believable motive: he doesn't neccesary want Zhuge Liang dead. Basically, if Zhuge Liang dies, then the war is over and he would have to give back the control of his army to his emperor. Considering the fact that he was planning a revolt, he has a very large stake in making sure that the enemy still exists.

Rome versus China hey? I think this is where I came in, except this time it's AOA-free. Remember that one XIII?

Rome versus China hey? I think this is where I came in, except this time it's AOA-free. Remember that one XIII?Yep. Where I and one other fellow Chinese grind away at one fanatical ultra-nationalistic Chinese... is how I recall it. :mischief:

Edit: Wait, or was that the China vs Egypt one? :hmm:

Yep. Where I and one other fellow Chinese grind away at one fanatical ultra-nationalistic Chinese... is how I recall it. :mischief:

Edit: Wait, or was that the China vs Egypt one? :hmm:

Another example of how different people seeing exactly the same thing remember it differently ;)

Do you mean this one? (it's good to have search... :p)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=15060

PS Ahhh, my early days as a juvenile-sounding CFC poster... :ack:

Strengths of the Two Empires?

OK:


China:

Has a long warfaring tradition. Goes back thousands of years.

Generally has the better Generals, They had studied the tactics of old, and were superb, whereas the Romans met only inferior armies and mostly just crushed the enemy with better armies.

Bigger Population.

Better Cavalry.

Good Communications: drums, gongs, and signal flags.


Rome:

Better motivated

Better Infantry

Good Signals: Horns and Trumpets and all.

Better Organized.





In short, it would be close. But I see a smaller roman army attacking the Chinese and trying to break their center, while the Chinese win on the flanks with better cavalry and crush the romans from the sides and flanks. Sort of like Cannae.

The Romans simply did not face an opponent like China, they had almost always faced worse opponents.

That's the greatest load of crap I've ever read. You are talking through your arse.

The Romans met inferior armies??? Oh yeah, like Hannibal was a wimp and those Germanic tribes were too.

Dealt with. - XIII

@ XIII
I wasn't saying that China just caved at the first sight of trouble, they fought well but in the end they were beaten and surrendered. The mongols could have finished them off, but China was no longer as great a threat. The overall plan of that conquest was to get the nomads of the steppes better land, China was just a first tep on the way to Europe and the mid-east. Point being that both empires could be beaten by the Barbarians that occupy the land between them.

@ XIII
I wasn't saying that China just caved at the first sight of trouble, they fought well but in the end they were beaten and surrendered. The mongols could have finished them off, but China was no longer as great a threat. The overall plan of that conquest was to get the nomads of the steppes better land, China was just a first tep on the way to Europe and the mid-east. Point being that both empires could be beaten by the Barbarians that occupy the land between them.
The Mongols couldn't have finished them off. The Chinese advisors thought it would be more economical to just give the Mongols money and send them elsewhere than to fight them. And the Mongols thought it would be better to just take the money so they can go fight somewhere else. The Mongols didn't move west because China was weaken, it was just diplomatically better that way. And the Chinese didn't think that giving them money would be a method that can last forever. I would compare this Chinese-Mongol treaty to the one that Stalin signed with Hitler. He knew he wasn't really signing for peace, but he needed to buy some time while his enemy go fight elsewhere.

I don't think the Chinese had stirrups yet at this age... Perhaps a superior horse-harness, but not stirrups...

Oops, read the time wrong..

Chinese citizens didn't like to be soldiers, esp in the last 1000 years (Song era and after). We don't look on war as something glorious and valiant.

That is also why the chinese lost to the Mongols during the song dynasty, the chinese were too pacified and your army was weak during these years.

Chinese citizens frowned down upon trade and contact with the outside world during the Ming dynasty, which was why Zheng He's fleet was decomissioned, we can only wonder how the world would be if those voyages continued.

THe Han army was a mix of light calvary and infantry, mobility and powerful archery was their main strength... the infantry had pretty decent armor (small plate stiched together... that called scale mail right??? full body scale mail most of them had) their main weapon were polearms (called Ji , basically a halberd like long spear with another blade comming out in an L shape, very flexible as it could thrust while also hook and slash and punch.... most of the calvary use this as main weapon too) with other assorted arms (Daos as side arm mostly, Daos are one edged swords good for slashing and more durable than most double edge swords)
with very well devloped archery and crossbow use (they had hand pulled AND those crossbows that need to be pulled by steppin on, suffice it say it was enough to punch through ANYTHING at realtively decent range)

What would happen in a rome vs han war if it's legionary vs that kind of army? I would bet my money on teh Han, the legionary would crush the chinese infantry formation if it went head to head as that's what they were designed to counter (mass spear arm) but the chinese infantry formations were also much tougher against calvaries, while their far superior ranged fire powers would badly devastate the legionary. calvary wise it was close but Han probably had a advantage too as calvary's role was quiet a bit more important in the Han army than the legionary....

But Han dynasty DID NOT have heavy calvary.. those appeared by the early-mid North-south dynasty eras where there were fully armored riders AND horses (also scale mail for horses but now the riders are wearing a scale mail with huge plates over them so it was even better)... but this kind of heavy cav acturally didn't remain main stream for that long... the Tang dynasty preferred lighter calvary with armored men but not horses ... the Song reintroduced heavy cav but was limited in number due to lack of horses....

Do you mean this one? (it's good to have search... :p)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=15060

PS Ahhh, my early days as a juvenile-sounding CFC poster... :ack:

Ah yes! Thats it- thanks for the memories. :D

That's the greatest load of crap I've ever read. You are talking through your arse.

The Romans met inferior armies??? Oh yeah, like Hannibal was a wimp and those Germanic tribes were too.


I'll ignore the profanities. Yes, Rome fought mostly inferior armies.

Hannibal led a ragtag army of African Spearmen (his best unit, better than a legion in grinding combat but easily flanked), Celtic and Iberian Mercenaries (not the best troops in any situation, not at all disciplined), Numudian Cavalry (better than Roman cavalry, not that it was saying much), and others. It was a multinational, multilingual force that was inferior in equipment and training to the Romans it fought. Hannibal was a true genius to meld these together to win. However, eventually a combination of stubborness and luck of the Romans did him in.

The Greeks were one of their greatest opponents, but they, too, were crushed due to the limitations of the phalanx.

The Parthians posed a true threat--the antithesis of the Roman legion--a lightly armed and armoured horde of horsemen that peppered them with arrows and ran away.

However, the vast majority of those that the Romans faced--the Barbarians on the frontier, were quite inferior. The only area the Germanics had the Romans beat in was cavalry--and the Romans often hired Germans for their cavalry.

Simply put, the Romans had a superior armed, trained, and organized force than any they met, and this led them to so many victories. When they actually take on a serious opponent--the phalanx, Hannibal, or the Parthians, they blunder for quite a while, and then finally manage to beat them through sheer stubborness.

The combination of timing, luck, and bad opponents is unbelievable, but it led the Romans to victory all the same.

That is also why the chinese lost to the Mongols during the song dynasty, the chinese were too pacified and your army was weak during these years.Read this. It's a little article I've written on the Mongol conquest of Song China.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=61691

The Chinese was conquered by basically a N Chinese army, backed by some Mongol cavalry forces. The Mongols were also busy in the Mideast at this time.

Chinese citizens frowned down upon trade and contact with the outside world during the Ming dynasty, which was why Zheng He's fleet was decomissioned, we can only wonder how the world would be if those voyages continued.The Cantonese and Fujianese were very on about trade - you can't make gross overassumptions like that. It was the mandarins at the govt center who persuaded the emperor to stop the official expeditions, due more to increasing costs elsewhere than anything.

Even so, private Chinese trading to the south continued for centuries, and probably even grew...

@ XIII
I wasn't saying that China just caved at the first sight of trouble, they fought well but in the end they were beaten and surrendered. The mongols could have finished them off, but China was no longer as great a threat. The overall plan of that conquest was to get the nomads of the steppes better land, China was just a first tep on the way to Europe and the mid-east. Point being that both empires could be beaten by the Barbarians that occupy the land between them.Read this. It's a little article I'd written on the Mongols' first westwards march, and the reason for it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62009

Central Asia wasn't on the Mongols' radar, much less Europe. GK's main aim had always been N China, a rich prosperous land (compared with the steppes), just next door and ruled by their arch-enemies (the Jurchens were rumored to be behind the Tartar poisoning of Yesugei, GK's pa).

It was their increasing success which led them to march further and further afield.

Interesting....
But if the Mongols hadn't been diverted to the west, do you think they could have taken the rest of China?

Interesting....
But if the Mongols hadn't been diverted to the west, do you think they could have taken the rest of China?

? they did take all of china.

Interesting....
But if the Mongols hadn't been diverted to the west, do you think they could have taken the rest of China?

I don't think they'll be able to take the rest of China, but I imagine they would take a good chunk of the North. They were definitely a strong military at the time, so China would have a hard time fighting them off. But there is a certain point where the Chinese population and army concentration get's denser.

but they did take the rest of china under the yuan...but immeaditely after the capture of the north? i don't think so, they wouldn't have the time to build an inland navy to rival the Songs's.

but they did take the rest of china under the yuan...but immeaditely after the capture of the north? i don't think so, they wouldn't have the time to build an inland navy to rival the Songs's.The Jurchen capital of Kaifeng in N China fell in 1225 or so.

The Song was conquered totally by 1279.

A good difference of 50 years. ;)

The 'Mongol' inland navy was actually Chinese - in those days, we didn't have such modern definitions as nationalities and ethnicities. The groups in E Asia were looser...

I don't think they'll be able to take the rest of China, but I imagine they would take a good chunk of the North. They were definitely a strong military at the time, so China would have a hard time fighting them off. But there is a certain point where the Chinese population and army concentration get's denser.They did conquer all of China by 1279. With a mainly Chinese army.

Read my above post.

The novel is based on historical records. Zhege Liang did exist, as did the nation he essentially help defend. There were several embellshments of course, including the famous "Empty City Tactic", where he supposedly held off a whole army from an undefended city by opening the city gates and playing [some form of ancient Chinese string instrument whose name I do not know] over it.

there were also statues of him.

If it was Post amrian reformed army, and particurlay a post agustian reformed Roman army, the Roman military wins so fast it borders on hilarity.

A)none here give credit to Romes steel weapons, which by the times of Augusts, were being produced on a scale that would not be matched by no nation -china included- until Britian began to industirlize.

B)you all say numbers numbers number. lets me get this through your skulls- numbers hardley matter. Time after time after time, skilled tacticians have shown that numbers can always be trumped by good tactiucs. Roman armies after the reforms of augustus in particuler, were skilled at winning inspite of thier commanders, more then because of them this is because while th efabled legate came from mostlly aristocratic backgrouds, with usually little military trainign, the actual soliders were ksilled, harlined veterans, professionally skilled with thier weapons, and drilled endlesslly to presicion.

C)everone imagines the Roman army as composed of onyl legionaries you all couldnt be more wrong in your lives about the Imperial Roman army

the Imperial army was the master at combined arms frighting, using the leguionaies as a form of achor, and frontline assuling shock troops, while artiller or varios sizes, rangers, and types reigned down terror upon the enemy, all the while vollies of arow, fired from composite bows, held in the "mongol lock" (yes, well before the Mongols re-introduced it, and made it so famous in the west) reigned down continous terror, safelly behin the legions lines, and amidst the formation fo reserve troops

all this merelly serves as a general frontal assult.

from the sides approce assorted types of cavalry, ranginf from light, medium, and heavy types, as well as foot based auxilliary troops, in loose formation as to take advantage of uneven terrian that would pose a challenge to the classic legionaires.

and then of course, you have th eallied contingents form the area, whom would knwo the terrian quite well...

D)you speak of the chines crossbow; but what of the Roman crossbow? the Western crossbow was inveted well in the BCs by the inhabitnet sof the city of Syracuse, called a "gastorphetes", as it wess well larger then what we consider as the classic cross bow, so much, they you had to put your weigh by leaning on it to set the trigerr; this woudl eventually evovle into the Roman ballista, some of whice where the size of modern day rifles...

E)ye all speak of the wonderous CHinese general, but do the Roman generals, count for nothing? Look to Scipio, defeater of Hannibal, whom by all accounts had an army superior in form and functiuon tot hat of Romes (well, at the least the army of th emid-republic). Perhaps Julius ceasr, whom defeated, Gallic,Celtic,Germanic,Egyptian, and even other Roman armies alike, mabey Vespasian, skilled on so many front, or even the ever-formidable trajan will take your fancy...

A)none here give credit to Romes steel weapons, which by the times of Augusts, were being produced on a scale that would not be matched by no nation -china included- until Britian began to industirlize. I find that very hard to believe. Source?

D)you speak of the chines crossbow; but what of the Roman crossbow? the Western crossbow was inveted well in the BCs by the inhabitnet sof the city of Syracuse, called a "gastorphetes", as it wess well larger then what we consider as the classic cross bow, so much, they you had to put your weigh by leaning on it to set the trigerr; this woudl eventually evovle into the Roman ballista, some of whice where the size of modern day rifles... The point about Chinese crossbows is that it's a standard weopan amongst Han infantry; not a specialized 'special forces' weopan usable only by large teams.

Crossbows are outlawed in Christendom at one time for a reason, you know. ;)

In any case, I'm no expert on Han Chinese military; so I wouldn't comment further, except to correct the grossier misconceptions in this thread (as I'd done so far).

theres gross misconceptions on ever army by people who dotn know all that much about them, noen of us, me included, is exempt fromt hat.

that said, the industiral production needs to proof beyond what was needed to support what we know Rome had; at its peaks, every major city and fortifcatcaion had a large, industiral forge. every legion had its own team of smiths, and these were fro the legions.

Now, begin to add in what was required to arm the nave, an army of the military that was completlly seperate (and resented by) from the army, and more over, facto in the local miltias, and auxiliary forces...

and on crossbows; the smaller types of ballistas were fiarlyl speacialty; buts legions carried large number sof both ballistae, and catapults, and were not anything special, spectactuerl, or even the slightes bit unsual to a Roman citizen, let alone a soldire.

and on crossbows; the smaller types of ballistas were fiarlyl speacialty; buts legions carried large number sof both ballistae, and catapults, and were not anything special, spectactuerl, or even the slightes bit unsual to a Roman citizen, let alone a soldire. Have Roman legions ever marched into a waiting army of crossbowmen, defended by pikes, flanked by cavalrymen? ;)

I'm not talking about seige weopans here.

I'm not talkign seige weapons either; every Rome "seige weapon" was used practically on the battle feild as well. a point most fail to take into accoutn when considerin the forces that Roem coudl muster;

and yes, while not crossbowmen, Greco-Macedonian armies did have bowmen, suerior cavalry, and a formation that coudl only be beat by either flainking, or lureing it bad terrian... mostlly due to those infamouse Pikes the Phillip of macedfon introduced into the region... ;)

@xen didn't you read my posts? I said that Romans had steal weapons, but I didn't know exactly how much... :) So, I couldn't tell the chinese (;)) in here because I couldn't back up my arguments. :)

And at last, we can assume that we just can not know what would have happened. But I certainly think that the attacking army would have lost (Assuming both empires were neighboring each other and didn't have to walk long to get to attack).

mfG mitsho

Bowmen can not match crossbowmen in defending.
Although those bowmen have a much higher fire rate, but they have a much lower fire range then the crossbowmen.Even a normal crossbow could make shoot of 300m and with a effective range of about 140~150M. No bows in that time can match it.

Have Roman legions ever marched into a waiting army of crossbowmen, defended by pikes, flanked by cavalrymen? ;)

I'm not talking about seige weopans here.

The Romans came up against a wide variety of opponents and their system coped with them all up to a point.

Roman Legions would march into the pikemen and should (given their repute in close-quarters fighting) kill them and be able to move onto the crossbowmen. As for the cavalry on the wings, the Romans would have their own and auxillary cavalry, not to mention that the Roman Legions had faced massed cavalry before and been able to repel their attacks. The effectiveness of this cross-bow fire is entirely speculative and indeed, had the invention been that good, it like iron weapons would have spread from land to land and been the backbone of forces. But, despite the facts that there Greeks in 3rd Century B.C had cross-bows, none of the Western or Middle-Eastern Civilizations took to them in the way the Han appears to have done.

That in China the cross-bow superceded the chariot, doesn't mean that the weapon was effective enough to repel armies that would look to go hand to hand rather than just ping missiles at each other.

To those who say "numbers numbers numbers" (thanks, Xen.;)), read up Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars". He was frequently outnumbered.

To those who say "numbers numbers numbers" (thanks, Xen.;)), read up Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars". He was frequently outnumbered.

And you expect a highly political general aiming for a bid at Empire to be honest about numbers?

Xen, you are right that the Empire pocessed more than just legionaries, but Rome's cavalry weren't exactly anywhere near as high a quality as the Chinese, nor were their missile troops. Auxillaries simply could not match the kind of stuff China could put up.

IT's hard to lie about the numbers, with ALL the soldiers, ALL the skeletons and human remains...;)

Xen, you are right that the Empire pocessed more than just legionaries, but Rome's cavalry weren't exactly anywhere near as high a quality as the Chinese, nor were their missile troops. Auxillaries simply could not match the kind of stuff China could put up.


Not true; it was Roman cavalry tradition that led directlly to the development of the cataphract, one of the best horsemen the world has seen by anyones standards in the late 2nd, and primarilly 3rd Century AD, by simply equipping the 12st century AD Contarius cavalry men with horse armour; add in the fact that Rome had ample access to Gallic, SPanish, and numdian horsemn traditions and trainign after thier conquest of those areas, and you find an empire with a large amount a people who are experince horse riders, and more then able to train other men who may have little, or even no prior horse experince in ways of good horsemen ship; it is in that manner that the Romans were bale to take on the steppe peoples, and the Parthians on equal footing, aside from the sheer quality of the Roman foot troops.

why then, might you ask did the Huns cxause such a problem?

bad leadership, economic collpse, and a general disuse of cavalry in the westenr par tof the empire all led up to problem, sin the east, it was mianlly just bad leadership that was the root of its problems.

and remember "AUxilary DOSE NOT mean "second rate" trooper! it simply denotes that the soldire is not a full citizen, but an inhabitant of the empire, and that they fight in a manner disticnt and speacilized from the legions, but not necissarilly worse then that of the legions, only different

Not true; it was Roman cavalry tradition that led directlly to the development of the cataphract, one of the best horsemen the world has seen by anyones standards in the late 2nd, and primarilly 3rd Century AD, by simply equipping the 12st century AD Contarius cavalry men with horse armour; add in the fact that Rome had ample access to Gallic, SPanish, and numdian horsemn traditions and trainign after thier conquest of those areas, and you find an empire with a large amount a people who are experince horse riders, and more then able to train other men who may have little, or even no prior horse experince in ways of good horsemen ship; it is in that manner that the Romans were bale to take on the steppe peoples, and the Parthians on equal footing, aside from the sheer quality of the Roman foot troops.

why then, might you ask did the Huns cxause such a problem?

bad leadership, economic collpse, and a general disuse of cavalry in the westenr par tof the empire all led up to problem, sin the east, it was mianlly just bad leadership that was the root of its problems.

Still, their cavalry simply was not on the same level as steppe cavalry. The Chinese drew directly from these, and thus, China would have the superior cavalry.

and remember "AUxilary DOSE NOT mean "second rate" trooper! it simply denotes that the soldire is not a full citizen, but an inhabitant of the empire, and that they fight in a manner disticnt and speacilized from the legions, but not necissarilly worse then that of the legions, only different

That I know. I was refering to Auxillaries being worse than the Chinese because they were not on the same level as Archers or Cavalry. If there had been legionaries who were armed with the bow or mounted, I still would have said they were the inferior.

that I dont buy, not now, nor ever; as it ha sbeen mentioned before; a good deal of "innovations", ar enot necsisarlly better, or more effective; for instance, much ado is given to the stirrup, yet most re-enactors will tell you stright up and anciet war saddle works just as well to keep the trooper in it; and as has been mentioned, if the crossbow was the super effective weapon it is made out to be, then its use would have spread in the west from the Greels who inveted it in that corner of the world; insead, you see the crossbow itself barelly adopted by thwe Romans, and mostlly imprvoed upon to make large scale feild artillery; as far as the steppe peoples go, I dont buy it, perhaps the mongols had better leadership, but lets face facts here, the average Mongolian warrior would not have been all that different from Hunnic, and Turkick warriors, both of whome did very well agiasnt european knights, who took off from the germanic traditions of cavalry, but also people who would apply heavy Romanic-inspired cavalry in thier army, be it in emulation of the Byzantien cavalry, or the assimilation of Sarmatian cataphracts, who were in essentially the same style as the Roman heavy cavalry was.

I could've sworn that the cataphract was of original Armenian design..

nope :p

the cataphract in it spurest sense, was introduced as an Assyrian innovation, but wa slost; the idea of heavy cavalry was to stick around in the east, eventually being well adopted by persia, and in turn influncing the Companion cavalry of alexander the great;

however, true heavy cavalry was used by the Tarantine type of greelk mercenry, who used sheilds whiel on horseback, which, belive it or not, was actually not a practice what so ever, at least not in the med sea and near east regions until that time;

however, the Roman cataphract trace sits orgins to a primarilly sheildless type of cavalry called a "contarius", so calle dbecause of its use of the COntos land, not all that different from a pike, in eing a very long spear; the heavy cavalry fo the east eventually convinced the Romans that the contarius, already a heavilly armour rider, that the horse as well needed good barding to become a true terror to the enmy, and once added, well, the rest as they say, is history :)

and remember "AUxilary DOSE NOT mean "second rate" trooper! it simply denotes that the soldire is not a full citizen, but an inhabitant of the empire, and that they fight in a manner disticnt and speacilized from the legions, but not necissarilly worse then that of the legions, only different

No, I disagree - for SOME PERIODS auxiliaries were properly trained, but not for the entire duration of the republic and then the empire. Rome new full well, for example, that it was deficient in cavalry and did not try to retrain cavalry auxiliaries who had their own methods. Later Auxiliaries were much more regulated, granted.

I'm jumping into the conversation a bit late, but if I understand it you guys are giving the advantage in population to China. Why?

In the Chinese census in the first decade a.d. there were 57,000,000 people in China.

According to modern estimates, Rome had 45,000,000 people during the time of Augustus.

Remember that the world population wasnt the same then as it is now.

but you forgotten that the Roman Nation had a LOT of slaves. Nearly 1/3rd of the population in italy i think....but i dun know about the rest of the empire though..

True, but if it ever became truly necessary I think Rome could have adapted.

A)"population" is a weird word in the roman world; considering that the population "estimate" is almost certinalyl dereived from the Roman censuse (of which i havent a clue as where to find the specifcs detialed on it are), one has to be careful; the census was aimed at, in addtion to finding out th enumber fo inhabitiants the empire had, it was also aimed at finding out the living resources of the empire, from cows and chickns, to, you guessed it, slaves. as such I'd liek to see if that figure counts as a total popualtion, or the population of free men in the empire at the time.

B)@BOTP; that sture; for large periods of time, thje Roman auxillaries didnt have comptitnet traing; btu then considering that we all know full well that every person sterotypes the Roman army at its pinnacle of success, during the first century AD, and that that is the army everyoen has in mind when they make these inanae threads trying to compare two armies from different sides of the earth agiasnt each other, it sonly logicle to tak ethe spefics of the roman army from the time of its height; which, as it just happens, was also the time when Auxilla were at thier most effective.

I think Rome would destroyed China. It would have adapted its weapons and tactics to counter the chinese plus it was capable of fightiong much larger armies thats why it took so long for barbarians to cross and stay in roman territory. The roman legion at its height would have destroyed the chinese or at last made it pssible for a stalemate betweeen the two. Now in 200bc it most likely would have lost just like when hannibal entered Italy and destroyed every roman sent against him.