Ancient China vs. Ancient Rome

[(+) Influence]

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.

 

[alex994]

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

 

[Amenhotep7]

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

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

 

[North King]

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

 

[Boleslav]

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.

 

[North King]

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.

 

[alex994]

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?

 

[FriendlyFire]

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.

 

[alex994]

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.

 

[pawpaw]

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

 

[stratego]

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 . 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?

 

[alex994]

the Chinese army had shields.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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

 

[Warman17]

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.

 

[alex994]

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.

 

[citizen001]

china had the greatest strategist in history: Zhuge Liang.

china wins hands down.

 

[KoRnEa]

not in 200BC and Zhuge Liang is overrated.

China will still win though.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[zjl56]

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.

 

[Boleslav]

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.