Han armies VS Roman Legions
-
By 116 A.D, Roman Emperor Trajan have led his legions all the way to the east and had captured the Parthian City of Susa. Trajan planned to continue advancing, inspired by the footsteps of Alexander the Great, with the intention of marching all the way to India and turning it into another Roman province.
Unfortunately he died on his campaign before he can realised this dream. What the Romans do not know that at this furthest extent, the Roman Legions was only within a day march to the nearest Han Chinese military outpost, set up earlier by Chinese General Ban Chao, who had lead the Chinese armies furthest to the west to Parthia, were used to secure and control local region.
At that time, both Han and Roman Empires were the most powerful political entities on Earth. Both possesses vast numbers of excellently well-equipped and well trained disciplined soldiers.
The Roman legions depends on its heavily armoured disciplined legionnaries and its formations, while the Chinese uses its armoured horsemen and infantry equipped with advanced missile weapons such as the crossbow (Which the Han Chinese were already expert in using) for its advantages on field.
What I would really want to know and find out, if both armies were commandered by excellent generals, what would the outcome on the battlefield be between the seemly evenly-matched forces? Discuss -
Tat would have been an interesting meeting. But talk about bloodshed!
If the Chinese were able to gain the high ground and/or fully utilize their missile like weopons, I'd give them the edge.
Otherwise the romans would grind them to a pulp with their heavier armour I think. -
My conclusion is how a thin, far stretched expediting Army in a totally new terrain to win an Army bigger, well organized, already operated in that area for hundreds of years?
General Ban Chao is a greatest Chinese commander that fought Huns, the Chinese army deployed there usually in hundreds of thousand and they operated there since 220BC when Emperor Qin united whole China. Because of the Han ArmyÂ’s strong hold and persistence, a usually hard fighting, tough ranger like Huns even canÂ’t make a life in their ancient land therefore, eventually, after centuries fighting with Chinese, they had to emigrate to west, and once settled in the Eurp-land, they took the new continent by storm force the Saxons moving west and settled a then desert island now we call England. -
There's little hope of the Romans managing to overrun the Chinese... but then again the Chinese have little hope of overruning the Romans as well. It might have been a stalemate, all things being fair and working well. The defender will have the advantage.
-
I would say that the hans will win the war because the hans had the benefit of their homeground where they don't have to worry abt food supplies and have their castle or gate to get the upper hand , the romans side they have such heavy armour , i don't think they are that agile and they also have to think abt their own food supplies as the hans could cut off their supply of food by surrounding them and chinese very long ago already been expert of archery liao . Who wants to fight so close when you can just shoot them from above ? if water guns had been invented that time , maybe the hans just have to squirt oil on the romans n shoot fire arrow at them
. -
In your scenario,..The Romans will be fighting just a Han Military outpost, which would not be more than 200.. and the Han empire is a tad too far to reinforce them. The Roman will have them piece meal..
However, this would spark a major military response, not seen .. since the mobilisation of the Han's army against the XiongNu (Huns). Then the subsequent battle will tilt towards the Hans.. who have a larger army strength, crossbows, composite bows, sieging weapons and heavy calvaries.
The largest Army the Roman has were just 70,000... even if they moblise all their regional defense force.. it's still too few. And their vassal state aren't exactly loyal.. they were just militarily subdued by the Romans.
You have to note that even though the Romans infantry were heavily armoured, (the hans are similarily armoured ) the Parthia war has shown that the Romans were shocked that their armour couldn't stop their Arrows.. that where the superority composite bows of the Hans comes in.
I would say that the Hans will win in long term.. They have both natural and human resources.. that the Romans to not..
also we have to talk logistics.. something the Hans has but distance is also their achellies heels.. If the war requires them to advance pass today's thru XinJiang and Afghanistan into the Middle east -
Han armies will win
use of projectile weapons and calvary on known territory will add to the advantage
but i think on head to head grunt warfare I have a feeling the Romans will win
-
Hey, who say the Han Army is lightly armored? Those who doubt can buy a airticket to Chinese city of Xian and pay a visit to the Terracotta Warriors which all in heavy armor.
For the offence side, then Chinese were in absolute advantage. Romans still rely solely on their Melee fight, Chinese already developed bronze Crossbow which can pierce several layers of Iron with easy and a range up to 500meters!
Check this out:
Ancient Crossbow with Some Unique Features from China
Talking about Tactics, Even in 117AC, Chinese army already been guided by Sun tze’s “ Art of the war “, which until now still been used by modern army like the US forces in Iraq. -
Found this reconstruction painting of a Han Chinese soldier
And a Roman Legionary at the time of Trajan
-
I would say Han simply because
1) Han General are strategy based trained. Roman Soldiers are Tactical Based Trained. Which explained roman soldier are better equiped than Han.
2) Han's main power in not infantry, but its cavalry, fast and mobility.
3) At this time I assume its during the Eastern Roman empire period. Simply most of the forces are no longer equiped like the old roman legions. Most of the forces are comprises of mecenary from the middle eastern, and they are majority cavalry. This has a disadvantage. Disciplinary wise is weaker.
4) Han army are trained to fight in a more flexible manner rather than the romans in a more rigid manner which proven effective to the barbarians in the north.
5) Eventually it will not turn out as a full scale war simply... the distance and etc just as one of the forumite suggest.
6) it is very true that it's just a out post so therefore the army of the Han wasn't strong. Therefore.... At this point of battle, its the romans who will win. -
Its actually Western Roman empire period actuallyOriginally posted by banzie:I would say Han simply because
1) Han General are strategy based trained. Roman Soldiers are Tactical Based Trained. Which explained roman soldier are better equiped than Han.
2) Han's main power in not infantry, but its cavalry, fast and mobility.
3) At this time I assume its during the Eastern Roman empire period. Simply most of the forces are no longer equiped like the old roman legions. Most of the forces are comprises of mecenary from the middle eastern, and they are majority cavalry. This has a disadvantage. Disciplinary wise is weaker.
4) Han army are trained to fight in a more flexible manner rather than the romans in a more rigid manner which proven effective to the barbarians in the north.
5) Eventually it will not turn out as a full scale war simply... the distance and etc just as one of the forumite suggest.
6) it is very true that it's just a out post so therefore the army of the Han wasn't strong. Therefore.... At this point of battle, its the romans who will win.
Han Dynasty was from 206 BC to AD 220, Western Roman Empire is from 44 BC to AD 286
Ban Chao lived from AD 32 to AD to AD 102 -
CAn any one here list the weapons and tactics used by both the armies at that era?
-
Here's a better pic...
Imperial Legionary 1st century AD
Imperial Legionary 1st century AD. A first century legionary wearing chain mail armour, the lorica hamata, and the typical imperial 'Gallic' helmet. Also he has with him the famous large square shield
Not all soldiers are that armoured.. only in Hollywood movies >>
A legion on the march relied completely on its own resources for weeks. To make camp each night every man carried tools for digging as well as two stakes for a palisade.
Apart from this and his weapons and armour, the legionary would also carry a cooking pot, some rations, clothes and any personal possessions.Weighed down by such burdens it is little wonder that the soldiers were nicknamed 'Marius' Mules'. -
Originally posted by acwire_2125:CAn any one here list the weapons and tactics used by both the armies at that era?
The tortoise formation was one of the prime examples of Roman ingenuity at warfare. When deployed in such a way, the legionaries became virtually invulnerable to arrows or objects dropped from defensive walls.
The wedge was an aggressive formation used to 'crack open' enemy lines. Relatively small groups of legionaries could form such a triangle and then drive their way into the enemy ranks. As more Roman soldiers reinforced the wedge from behind, the enemy line could be forced apart. As breaking the enemy's formation was very often the key to winning a battle, the wedge formation was vitally important battlefield tactic of the Roman army
skirmish
The order to repel cavalry by Roman army officers brought about a defensive formation, in which the front rank formed a tight wall of shields with their pila protruding to form a line of spearheads ahead of the wall. Undoubtedly it would be very hard to bring a horse to break into that formation. The most likely occurrence would be that it would come to a halt of its own will ahead of the spearheads. It was at that moment that horse and rider would be at their most vulnerable against the ranks behind the first line of infantry which would then hurl their spears at them. Given the short distance and the training legionaries received, it is likely such halted cavalry, frantically trying to turn their horses around to retreat, whilst colliding with horses following in the charge, would prove very easy targets.
If one further considers the likely possibility of archers being present, as is the case on the photo above, the effect of this formation could indeed be devastating.
The orb was a defensive formation in the shape of a complete circle which could be taken by a unit which had either become detached from the army's main body and had become encircled by the enemy, or a formation which might be taken by any number of units if the greater army had fallen into disorder during a battle.
It can hence be seen as a formation representing a desperate 'last stand' by units of a collapsing army. But also it can be seen as a disciplined holding position by a unit which has been divided from the army's main body in battle and which is waiting for the main force to rejoin them.
In either case, it is not a formation one would like to find oneself in, as it obviously indicates that they are surrounded by the enemy.
Naturally any officers or archers would be positioned in the centre of the orb. -
i will say the Han armies because they have large numbers of manpower.
-
Ohh... I would like to add
BTW.. the Roman shields cannot stop arrows from the Han's composite Bows.
And when the Han's discovered the Metal Armour used by the Romans.. You bet.. in time they will be armed with those as well. Not too difficult for them.. resources and manpower are the Hans advantage. Since some of the XiongNu units are also has such armour. -
I will say han. Reason: Romans are tire after carrying so many things and marching for such long distances.
-
Nope..its neither Western nor Eastern Roman Empire, its 116 A.D, the Roman Empire at its greatest height of power, the Empire was split into 2 by 286 A.D and was effectively 2 different states by 395 A.D...Originally posted by laurence82:Its actually Western Roman empire period actually
Han Dynasty was from 206 BC to AD 220, Western Roman Empire is from 44 BC to AD 286
Ban Chao lived from AD 32 to AD to AD 102
Anyway Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine empire after the wester half was lost to the barbarians still make use of a small and professional army, with generals trained in military doctrine (not sure if it's as good as Sun Tzu Arts of War) The Eastern Roman army is very well equipped compared to the western armies, and instead of using the old legionnary system, they make use of heavily armoured horsemen and horse archers -
Ironically, the barbarian is no other but Huns, the nemesis of the Roman Empire, who not only caused the fall of Western Roman Empire but also defeated the Eastern Roman empire as well.Originally posted by Texcoco II:Nope..its neither Western nor Eastern Roman Empire, its 116 A.D, the Roman Empire at its greatest height of power, the Empire was split into 2 by 286 A.D and was effectively 2 different states by 395 A.D...
Anyway Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine empire after the wester half was lost to the barbarians still make use of a small and professional army, with generals trained in military doctrine (not sure if it's as good as Sun Tzu Arts of War) The Eastern Roman army is very well equipped compared to the western armies, and instead of using the old legionnary system, they make use of heavily armoured horsemen and horse archers
This may give us some clues on the topic, though Hans Army never in a direct war with Romans. But the Huns( Xiong Nu in Chinese) had been defeated by the Han Armies, The Han Armies expelled the entire Hun population emigrating to the west, where the Huns defeated the Romans because of their “combination of advanced weaponry, amazing mobility and battlefield tactics, they achieved military superiority over many of largest rivals, subjugating the tribes conquered”. -
A few more points to add...
The entire Roman army at Trajan's times (At the height of its power) is only 1/5 the size of Han Chinese army.
Han Chinese generals studied Arts of War...they have very advanced missile weapons like the crossbow, which hav no problems penetrating any thick iron plates, fast rate of fire and with precision too (Which is also better than the Medieval European's ones). Not to mention they have heavily armoured calvary too. -
Very good points... coolant..Originally posted by coolant:Ironically, the barbarian is no other but Huns, the nemesis of the Roman Empire, who not only caused the fall of Western Roman Empire but also defeated the Eastern Roman empire as well.
This may give us some clues on the topic, though Hans Army never in a direct war with Romans. But the Huns( Xiong Nu in Chinese) had been defeated by the Han Armies, The Han Armies expelled the entire Hun population emigrating to the west, where the Huns defeated the Romans because of their “combination of advanced weaponry, amazing mobility and battlefield tactics, they achieved military superiority over many of largest rivals, subjugating the tribes conquered”.
Also the Hans need not penetrate deep into the Roman Empire... Once Roman concentrate their Troops to their border to fight the Hans.. The Roman Empire would most likely disintegrate within, as they don't exactly have a loyal Alliance making up their Empire.. who were always jumping from one rebellion to another. However, with the Roman Army occupied in a major war.. many rebellion will surface everywhere.