Comparison between Roman and Han Empires on Wikipedia!

[Teeninvestor]

There's actually one of these articles on wikipedia, surprising.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

@ Teeninvestor - Pls try to post more substantively when starting a new thread, so that we know what you want to discuss in this thread, thanks.

This is the linky the OP is referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires

 

[Teeninvestor]

I don't know how many topics about "Rome and Han" we've posted here in Civfanatics, but before it starts again we need to get some facts straight.

1. Chinese army is not "Squabbling rabble" It is much better trained & Commanded than Roman army, who were a bunch of aristocrats commanded by nobility. IT is also more numerous; it routinely fields 300,000-400,000 men in one battle, while Rome's entire army is not that big. Han army is also commanded by professional generals who read Sun Tzu. Roman generals were mostly inept (except for belisarius).

2. Han's infantry is as good if not better. They are equipped with STEEL halbards which would have gone through any shields/armor the Romans had.

3. Han Empire is much more politically stable; Han emperors do not get assainated. Out of 22 emperors, 15 are assainated in Rome. If you've ever read "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", you'll know what I mean. Chinese emperors almost never get assainsated in peacetime, and China doesn't have a civil war every time the emperor dies.

4. Han's engineering is excellent; they did build great wall, and instead of building aqueducts, they built CANALS which ships can sail on. I know of no Roman engineering feat like this(and "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" also doesn't mention it.)

5. Attila's Huns had 20,000 horseman max and they swept through Europe literally unstopped. Xiongnu in China had 300,000 and they were defeated. Enough said.

P.S. Every time there is a thread about this, a ton of people will instinctively respond Rome is better. I don't know why you guys would even want to praise Rome; if Rome was as good as you think it is, Western nations couldn't even exist in the first place. Most of Rome's science was Greek anyways.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

4. Han's engineering is excellent; they did build great wall, and instead of building aqueducts, they built CANALS which ships can sail on. I know of no Roman engineering feat like this(and "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" also doesn't mention it.)

There're actually many Great Walls, but I do not think the Han built one. Although the war against the Xiongnu didn't proceed well in the first few decades, eventually the Han did prevail, though at great cost and effort. They didn't need a Great Wall.

The preceding Qin did build the Qin Great Wall (more like linking the existing walls, built by the Qin and the conquered Warring States of Zhao and Yan together though). The Great Wall today (further south than the one built by the Qin) was built by the Ming, when they were thrown out of the steppes by the revitalized Mongol tribes in the 16th century or so.

And the Han didn't build the Great Canal. It was built by the Sui in the 6th century, and one reason for the collapse of the Sui was the hardships which went into building public works like this one.

 

[Teeninvestor]

I know Han did not build the great canal, but they built many other canals in Kuanzhong such as Linshui and Guojin, and others.

 

[lovett]

1. Chinese army is not "Squabbling rabble" It is much better trained & Commanded than Roman army, who were a bunch of aristocrats commanded by nobility. IT is also more numerous; it routinely fields 300,000-400,000 men in one battle, while Rome's entire army is not that big. Han army is also commanded by professional generals who read Sun Tzu. Roman generals were mostly inept (except for belisarius).

Try the Republic....

How do you contend that Roman armies were aristocratic or that Roman generals generally inept? Rome's professional army was forged by recruiting the head count - eminently non-nobility.

Moreover it seems that Rome produced some of the finest military mind in human history. Caeser, Africanus, Pompey, Sulla, Marius and Trajan immediately spring to mind. This is a perhaps unsurprising facet of a society obsessed with militarism.

 

[Teeninvestor]

On average, most Roman commanders were of aristocratic birth. That isn't a fact you can deny.

Many Roman generals were competent, but it was mostly their own merit rather than the merit of the system, which had 2 commanders command the army!!!

Most Han generals were just as(if not more competent) than Caesar, Africanus and others. You think defeating a horde of 300,000 Huns is an easy task? conquering over thirty kingdoms is easy?

The best general I'd think, that you were missing, is Belisarius. This guy reconquered much of Europe with less than 20,000 troops and virtually no help from his emperor.

On average, most Roman generals were not very competent.

 

[North King]

Comparative history is not inherently stupid. Comparative history in which you judge one nation to be "better" than the other is inherently stupid. All I see here is a rant where China is (as usual) the center of the world, and everything outside of it is a barbarian periphery.

1) Chinese armies were not "better trained" than the Romans, that's a patently ridiculous claim. As for the command aspect, they were both fully professional armies.

2) Color me skeptical. Source?

3) China had a tradition of political stability and a much better geographic configuration for said stability.

4) I'm not sure how canals negate the Roman's engineering. A canal is a long hole in the ground; that speaks more to Han's manpower than prowess.

5) The Huns attacked at a point of critical weakness. Comparing an empire near its fall to the other at its peak is invalid.

 

[Teeninvestor]

My original intent is to post something pretty biased, and see if I can get results. Too many times I have saw "Chinese tactics are charging en masse, Peasant rebellions every three years, etc.." I wanted to see if I post something like this, I would get 10 posts with "Roem is superior, definitely, blah blah".

1. They weren't better trained; but they were definitely more numerous, due to good supply lines

2.Wagner, Donald B. (1993). Iron and Steel in Ancient China: Second Impression, With Corrections. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ISBN 9004096329. Page 243.
^ Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Part 3, Civil Engineering and Nautics. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd. Page 563 g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Also check this too and Search "Steel with oxygenated".

This is my source for two.

3. As to canals, you are very mistaken. Canals are very hard to build/construct and require heavy engineering. Remember, this is before dynamite. In any case, it doesn't "negate" Roman engineering, but it shows Han engineering is not "get 1 million forced labourers and work them to death" to quote a memorable thread.

and remember, who invented Paper.

Anyways, I'm reading "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." It's a fascinating book. Did you know you can get it free off the internet?

5. Even if the Huns attacked at a moment of weakness they shouldn't have been so powerful. Attila+ allies had 50,000 men, max. thats not a lot of troops(Edward Gibbons.) Most of the best hunnic horsemen were already dead from the flight anyways.

 

[lovett]

I think a far bigger problem is that military prowess plays such a big part in the estimation of historical 'worth'. Three out of your five points related to military ability, including your first two. Rome was a psychopathic military dictatorship that lived to support the army. Frankly, I look for other things in a nation.

 

[innonimatu]

1. They weren't better trained; but they were definitely more numerous, due to good supply lines

Your claim that the chinese empire "routinely fields 300,000-400,000 men in one battle" is unbelivable. The roman empire and the chinese empire had roughly the same population and technology level, and I'd be surprised if one could support a much larger professional army than the other. Rome, even with the excellent transportation allowed by the Mediterranean (which was the reason why it didn't need to build canals on a grand scale) did logistically support campaigns with armies up to about 120000 soldiers (excluding support personnel, which in variable numbers accompanied all ancient armies). China had rivers and canals, but I doubt that it could carry out campaigns with 300000 soldiers. Perhaps it happened once or twice, by converging different armies, but I doubt it.

2.Wagner, Donald B. (1993). Iron and Steel in Ancient China: Second Impression, With Corrections. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ISBN 9004096329. Page 243.
^ Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Part 3, Civil Engineering and Nautics. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd. Page 563 g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Also check this too and Search "Steel with oxygenated".

This is my source for two.

Roman armies most definitely used steel weapons, even if they - and the chinese - didn't quite master the mass production of steel of consistently good quality. The chinese did not invent steel, it was independently discovered in many places, and quality varied very much. For example, the best steel before the industrial age, the well-known "Damascus steel", was produced by chance (and came not from Europe, nor China, but from somewhere in India).

3. As to canals, you are very mistaken. Canals are very hard to build/construct and require heavy engineering. Remember, this is before dynamite. In any case, it doesn't "negate" Roman engineering, but it shows Han engineering is not "get 1 million forced labourers and work them to death" to quote a memorable thread.

So what? The persians built the first "Suez canal" (actually the egyptian Middle Kingdom probably already had one), were they better engineers then?
The romans didn't built canals because they didn't need them. The Mediterranean was their highway, the whole empire clung to it. Unlike the Chinese coast , it was easily navigable, with few storms, and free of pirates. Nero did try to build one at Corinth, but

Anyways, I'm reading "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." It's a fascinating book. Did you know you can get it free off the internet?

It's also not one I'd recommend, Gibbon wrote it starting from some strong opinions, not something you want from an historian...

5. Even if the Huns attacked at a moment of weakness they shouldn't have been so powerful. Attila+ allies had 50,000 men, max. thats not a lot of troops(Edward Gibbons.) Most of the best hunnic horsemen were already dead from the flight anyways.

1 - don't use Gibbons as a source.
2 - the Huns didn't conquer the roman empire, you could find better examples. By the way, how did China manage to get conquered by the manchus?

 

[Teeninvestor]

I think a far bigger problem is that military prowess plays such a big part in the estimation of historical 'worth'. Three out of your five points related to military ability, including your first two. Rome was a psychopathic military dictatorship that lived to support the army. Frankly, I look for other things in a nation.

I agree with that too. In this respect the Han would far outpace the Roman. They invented paper and a civilization that lasts until today.

As to inno's points:

1. Han did routinely field 300,000 to 400,000 troops. see Wikipedia or any other source.
Check Battle of Mobei or Battle of Mayi and you will see what I am talking about. Han agriculture was far superior to the Romans.

2.3. I see you no longer contest my point that Chinese engineering and steel were quite advanced.

4. Manchus conquered China because of something called the Little Ice Age which caused all of China to become agriculturally unproductive. Oh ya, and the surrender of the entire regular army helped too.

5. Roman Empire were conquered by Germans- the vietnamese in China's south were about as fierce. Of course today the Germans are powerful(Current western nations). Not in a single battle did the Huns lose to the Romans(Battle of Chalons was a German victory). That's pretty sad considering their army was 20,000-50,000 max.

 

[Dachs]

4. Manchus conquered China because of something called the Little Ice Age which caused all of China to become agriculturally unproductive. Oh ya, and the surrender of the entire regular army helped too.

The Manchu conquered China because the Chongzhen Emperor sacked Yuan Chonghuan and had him executed. The loss of a significant chunk of the agricultural sector was balanced, IMHO, by the later Ming's boom in the silver trade, which immensely enriched China. [/seriousness] Besides, if the Chinese were so great and had such a great agricultural sector, how come they weren't making the same productive gains as Europe was during the same period?

5. Roman Empire were conquered by Germans- the vietnamese in China's south were about as fierce.

Yes, because the Vietnamese were a constant threat on most of China's less defensible borders, raiding and mounting the odd full-scale invasion.

Not in a single battle did the Huns lose to the Romans(Battle of Chalons was a German victory).

Several things are wrong with this. Firstly, the Visigothi weren't, strictly speaking, "Germans". They ended up being the basis of a significant portion of the Spanish population, and they started out in modern-day Romania and Moldova. Secondly, it wasn't just because of the Visigothi that the Romans won the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields; the Visigothi were, after all, Roman foederati. It'd be like claiming the 'Italians' won the Battle of the Metaurus because they fought as alae in the Roman army. Thirdly, the Huns did lose the battle; it was a strategic defeat as well as a tactical one, and Gaul was closed to Attila. The continued presence of Aetius and his army there was what forced the Huns to try Italy the following year, in which course they suffered such intense supply problems and were ravaged by such diseases that they fled before Aetius, who had already debouched into the Po plain near Mediolanum, could engage with the main field army from Gaul.

That's pretty sad considering their army was 20,000-50,000 max.

Because we're allowed to critically examine Roman sources like Zosimus or Hydatius but we're not allowed to critically examine Chinese ones of equivalent dubiousness? Historiography applies to everyone equally.

 

[Teeninvestor]

These are troop figures that has been verified. Otherwise, they would have been challenged. There is something called the Terracotta army, you know... Also, Chinese histiography was a lot more precise.

Also the Ming were making quite big strides, mind you, but being conquered by a barbarian horde does set you back a little.... Remember the Dark Ages?

Huns, Mongols, Manchu>>>>>> Germans big time. Rampaging horsemen is deadly. Attila's horde was only 20,000, and look at how much damage he did.

And besides, I don't think you understand how much damage there is when you can't plant food in those times. Think what would happen today if all electrically-powered instruments completely failed. That's the equivalent of what happened to Ming.

 

[Dachs]

These are troop figures that has been verified. Otherwise, they would have been challenged.

But I believe they have been. Verify them for me, please.

There is something called the Terracotta army, you know...

...which, other than a description of the typical composition of an army and its armament during the relevant time period, is rather useless for determining the size of a field force. Ought I take Kaiser Wilhelm's series of statues on the Siegesallee as evidence that the German and Prussian army had more chiefs than Indians?

Also, Chinese histiography was a lot more precise.

Huh? That comment doesn't actually make any sense.

Also the Ming were making quite big strides, mind you, but being conquered by a barbarian horde does set you back a little....

Irrelevant; I was referring to stuff that took place before the fall of the Ming.

Remember the Dark Ages?

I wasn't born yet. Ask Sharwood, he remembers. (And Hob Gadling.)

Huns, Mongols, Manchu>>>>>> Germans big time.

Care to give actual, you know, evidence to back that up? What if I should, instead of participating in this 'Germans' farce, refer to the Alemanni, the Boii, the Marcomanni, the Greuthungi, the Tervingi, the Gothi, the Saxones, the Burgundii, the Quadi, the Gepidae, the Sauromatae, the Silingi, the Hasdingi, the Herules, the Alani, the Franki...?

Rampaging horsemen is deadly.

Which the 'Germans' had aplenty.

Attila's horde was only 20,000, and look at how much damage he did.

That is not how many men Attila had. Even the lower-bound estimates given in most modern monographs on the subject have 30,000; the safe assumption at the Catalaunian Fields is that his field force comprised 50,000.

And besides, I don't think you understand how much damage there is when you can't plant food in those times. Think what would happen today if all electrically-powered instruments completely failed. That's the equivalent of what happened to Ming.

Because responding to a joke comment is always made more effective when you cite the person against whom you are arguing and add a useless and invalid comparison.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Ming were making great strides equivalent to Europe before its fall. Check Joseph Needham's history of science and technology in China and you will know what I am talking about.

What? "Germans" are the common name for the Germanic peoples who overran the Roman Empire and formed modern nations. See Germanic peoples on wikipedia; i'm not being racist or anything, but thats the name. I wouldn't be offended if you called me a canadian(I live in Canada)??? Most english-speaking people won't mind being called Anglo-Saxon. When did calling a people by their name become racist?

I won't even comment if you thought that Germans refer to the inhabitants of Germany.....

By Chinese historigraphy I mean that history as a profession was taken much more seriously in ancient China; every dynasty wrote a history on the preceding one; even non-Chinese dynasties respected this custom. (In fact, the richer ones wrote several histories).

In terms of the troop figures, go on wikipedia(Land where if stuff isn't cited it's deleted) or any history of China and you will see it is not challenged. For example, the "Cambridge history of China".

This would also make sense as Chinese agriculture was much more advanced than Roman agriculture, they had invented the wheelbarrow, iron plows, and other innovations.

Please don't tell me you actually think the Germans are more powerful than the Huns or Mongols. These were hordes of hundreds of thousands of horsemen that took down civilizations easily. Europe is very lucky that she is protected by the Russian steppes against this menace. If China was not right under this horde, industrial revolution 1300. That's a fact agreed on by historians. See Song dynasty. Germans did not have much cavalry; their force was mainly infantry. See Battle of Adrianople. ANd besides, i think Attila's conquest of Germany proves my point that Huns and Mongols are much more powerful.

I've read Roman history and most of the time the German army is just a bunch of guys running forward with axes..... If the Romans had just one crossbow, they would have won many a battle.

This is another reason Rome's army wasn't on the same level as Han. Crossbows absolutely decimate the enemy, just like machine guns decimated infantry in WWI.

 

[Dachs]

What? "Germans" are the common name for the Germanic peoples who overran the Roman Empire and formed modern nations. See Germanic peoples on wikipedia; i'm not being racist or anything, but thats the name. I wouldn't be offended if you called me a canadian(I live in Canada)??? Most english-speaking people won't mind being called Anglo-Saxon. When did calling a people by their name become racist?

German and Germanic are entirely different terms, though. \

By Chinese historigraphy I mean that history as a profession was taken much more seriously in ancient China; every dynasty wrote a history on the preceding one; even non-Chinese dynasties respected this custom. (In fact, the richer ones wrote several histories).

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the texts, and actually can provide fantastic grounds for horrendous bias. They had state-commissioned histories in the Mediterranean world, too, you know (ma boy Livius being a rather good example), as well as leaders who wrote the histories themselves.

In terms of the troop figures, go on wikipedia(Land where if stuff isn't cited it's deleted) or any history of China and you will see it is not challenged.

That seems to me to be a comment on the failures of Wikipedia rather than the viability of the information.

For example, the "Cambridge history of China".

Cambridge Histories are typically old rehashings of previous work that has nothing to do with either much modern scholarship or historiography. Hell, the one on 'Greece and the Hellenistic World' is rather atrocious, to be honest.

Please don't tell me you actually think the Germans are more powerful than the Huns or Mongols.

Here we go with this 'Germans' crap again. And, please learn what a strawman is.

These were hordes of hundreds of thousands of horsemen

There were hundreds of thousands of 'Germans' too.

that took down civilizations easily.

The Manchu had a rather rough time of it in the early 17th century and took a rather long time to fully kill the Ming; the Huns didn't actually wipe out anyone; the Mongols had to fight a protracted campaign in southern China over several decades against the Sung, which doesn't sound 'easy' to me.

Europe is very lucky that she is protected by the Russian steppes against this menace.

The principal highway for nomadic invasions into Europe doesn't give jack for protection. Perhaps I should attempt to claim that the Gobi and Eastern Siberia did the same for China?

If China was not right under this horde, industrial revolution 1300definitely. That's a fact agreed on by historians. Ses Song dynasty.

That's not a 'fact', nor is it agreed upon, for one thing. I confess that there are people better equipped to argue against this than I, but I do know that while the Sung were extremely advanced for their time, they didn't come close to an Agricultural Revolution or an Industrial Revolution. I suppose BananaLee would be a good person to talk to about this, since he's insanely good with the history of the Chinese economy, but he's not around.

Germans did not have much cavalry; their force was mainly infantry. See Battle of Adrianople.

Looks like you don't know much about the Battle of Adrianople. Let's see where you got that information from...*scans Wikipedia article*...claims that Tervingi and Greuthungi had mostly infantry with some cavalry, which is unspecific enough to be kind of true...also states that the cavalry was superior to the Roman and was able to drive it off the field...also gives faulty numbers for both forces. In short: lulz. I guess those 'Germans', who apparently caused the Romans to seriously reform their cavalry forces to deal with them (from Gallienus on into the next centuries), didn't have cavalry worth worrying about...

ANd besides, i think Attila's conquest of Germany proves my point that Huns and Mongols are much more powerful.

I can make irrelevant points, too! Since Attila never actually displaced the Roman Empire, but a 'German' (a Scirian, to be exact), Odoacer, did, that must clearly mean that the 'Germans' were more powerful than the Huns!

I've read Roman history and most of the time the German army is just a bunch of guys running forward with axes..... If the Romans had just one crossbow, they would have won many a battle.

What do you think the gastraphetes, ballista, and scorpio were?

This is another reason Rome's army wasn't on the same level as Han. Crossbows absolutely decimate the enemy, just like machine guns decimated infantry in WWI.

Oh, God, this argument again.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Oh god

Don't tell me you are ACTUALLY thinking the Scipio and others are crossbow.

You have no knowledge of military history if you think that is the crossbow.

Those Roman weapons- big , immobile, can't move . Can't do jack when cavalry flanks you. Crossbow- personal, mass produced. Decimates anything that moves. You're saying basically a self-propelled assault gun without a turret is equivalent to a tank.

Russian steppes protected Europe because it's damn cold and there's no pasture. You see horses need pasture to survive; Ukraine and other areas were not good pasture. Besides, the Rhine, the Black Forest, the Vistula, the Danube... hmmm I think that's some good defences. What about China: NOTHING except for the great wall. yellow river freezes in winter.

Germans have terrible cavalry. Cavalry needs pasture, where's their pasture???? What about China? Oh right, they are right next to the biggest pasture on earth... . unlucky them. It's a misfortune that teh biggest horde of barbarians was put right next to the most advanced civilization.

Obviously Manchus and Mongols would take a long time conquering China. China was the most advanced and populous country in the world. They had to use Chinese troops to help. Put it this way: if a barbarian group can conquer China, that ensures it is the most powerful in the world. IF China can get conquered "easily" civilization as we know it can't survive. A tiny splinter of the barbarians that get driven off by China would become a big empire in Europe or elsewhere.

And besides, don't you think if professional historians found Chinese troop numbers questionable they would have objected???? Their silence proves everything.

But look what happened when barbarians escaped China into the rest of the world....

Huns- reduced north italy to rubble.

Huna- conquered India and killed 1/2 of India's population.

Mongols- Conquered the islamic empire and reduced it to wasteland....

Avars- did some heavy damage to the Byzantines...

Whenever a barbarian group escapes from China, the world suffers... lets put it that way.

P.S. Why would you think calling Germanic people Germans is a strawman... in no way thats offensive. Edward Gibbons doesn't think so.

 

[Dachs]

Don't tell me you are ACTUALLY thinking the Scipio and others are crossbow.

You have no knowledge of military history if you think that is the crossbow.

Those Roman weapons- big , immobile, can't move . Can't do jack when cavalry flanks you. Crossbow- personal, mass produced. Decimates anything that moves. You're saying basically a self-propelled assault gun without a turret is equivalent to a tank.

Apparently you don't know what a gastrophetes is, nor have you heard of the Xanten find which provides hard evidence to the classical sources attesting the existence of Roman personal crossbows for military use.

Russian steppes protected Europe because it's damn cold and there's no pasture. You see horses need pasture to survive; Ukraine and other areas were not good pasture.

So the fact that nomads like the Sauromatae, the Sakai, and their ilk lived on these steppes for centuries has no bearing on anything whatsoever?

Besides, the Rhine, the Black Forest, the Vistula, the Danube... hmmm I think that's some good defences.

Which has nothing to do with Russia, but okay, I'll bite. Rivers aren't actually that good as geographical barriers. Their primary value is to make supply difficult, but for your average group of barbarians you aren't going to be looking for supplies from back across the river anyway, since you can just live off the land. As for the Black Forest, well - that was home country for the Alemanni et al, and thus doesn't really serve as a geographical barrier, now does it?

What about China: NOTHING except for the great wall. yellow river freezes in winter.

Himalaya, Gobi, Taklamakan, Amur. I don't think that arguing that either state had better 'geographical frontiers' is going to actually matter, tbh.

Obviously Manchus and Mongols would take a long time conquering China. China was the most advanced and populous country in the world. Manchus had to use Chinese troops to help. Put it this way: if a barbarian group can conquer China, that ensures it is the most powerful in the world.

Which has no bearing on your original point, which is that they 'took down civilizations easily'. Firstly, claiming that an empire's strength can be measured by its opponents is dumb. It takes two states or societies to decide the outcome of a war, one to win it and one to lose it, and the failures of one do not impact the successes of another. Further, the normative statement that Ming China or Sung China was more difficult for a contemporary power to destroy than the Western Roman Empire was is, IMHO, irrelevant - just try go about proving it. And, finally, since the barbarians only were able to 'take down' half of the Roman Empire, and then, not even half (because of various other details like the fealty sworn by Odoacer, the brief Noviodunum Dominate, and others), can't you say that the Romans, since their system resisted barbarians better, did a better job?

Huns- reduced north italy to rubble.

The Huns weren't the Xiongnu. Go back to the eighteenth century and try again.

Huna- conquered India and killed 1/2 of India's population.

The Huna weren't Xiongnu either, and though we find them (technically, we find the Hephthalites) in Chinese sources they don't seem to have done a whole lot against China, making the comparison based on faulty information (since the Huna didn't kill half of India) irrelevant.

Mongols- Conquered the islamic empire and reduced it to wasteland....

You mean the Khwarezmian Empire? Yeah, that wasn't bad. Don't see how that impacts any comparison of Rome with Han.

Avars- did some heavy damage to the Byzantines...

And there's no proof that the Avars were the Rouran. Not to mention that they were, in the end, repelled easily enough by the defense of Sergios et al.

P.S. Why would you think calling Germanic people Germans is a strawman... in no way thats offensive.

The comment of 'strawman' referred to your apparent belief that I was claiming that the 'Germans' were 'more powerful' than the Huns, Mongols, etc. Further, I wasn't claiming that it is offensive in any way. I was saying that it's wrong. Hell, even 'Germanic' is a useless appendage, and helps in no way to differentiate between barbarian groups which existed before such national concepts came into being. Hell, even 'Attila' is a Germanic name, and the vast majority of warriors who fought for the Hunnic Empire were of Germanic origin. (It is notable that when the Huns fought largely for themselves, namely the episode of Uldin against the Romans at the close of the fourth century, they got squashed.)

Edward Gibbons doesn't think so.

Edward Gibbon was a fat old fool, and his editorializing has been rather thoroughly debunked.

 

[Teeninvestor]

You're going off topic again....

Our original contention was that Chinese could not have possibly supplied hundreds of thousands of troops. Your silence on this matter indicates I am right.

The point is rivers are GREAT Defensive barriers. That's a fact. If it wasn't a fact the Chinese would have been vanquished during the Wu Hu era and we wouldn't have paper, gunpowder, printing press and others. Not to mention that china would turn into pasture, and Europe would be in ruins soon after(Hmmm, I wonder how Attila with 500,000 horsemen would turn out for Europe).

The point is that Europe has so much rivers and forest that it would be impassable for large groups of nomadic cavalry.

Mongols also sacked Baghdad if you recall. That saved Europe a ton of trouble.

Considering the size of the Hun and Avars when they reached Europe, it is amazing they were able to conquer the terroritory they did. Both hordes had 30,000 horsemen, max. When the Chinese were fighting the barbarians, a horde of 100,000 was considered small.

your comment about hundreds of thousands of germans is absurd. Germans are not the military threat nomadic cavalry is. They are guys with axes. Any organized army could defeat them easily. Qin conquered south china, and no body brags about Chinese overwhelming these natives.

K, I'll cede Russian steppes is good for nomads. However, you don't get so many nomadic cavalry concentrations, than in Mongolia. Hmmmm, let me think...
Xiongnu, Xianbei, Rouran, Gokturks, Khitan, Jur'chens, Mongols, and others.... any one of them could have brought down Roman, Persian or Indian Empires.

I'm not even going to respond to your comment about Roman crossbows. If they had so many crossbows why would they have guys throwing javelins....... Please don't falsify history for your own ends.