Roman Empire vs The Han Dynasty

Could a 6 Stone Han crossbow pierce Roman armor?

Neither side would be able to launch much of an offensive. Deserts and mountains, a logistical nightmare.

>Could a 6 Stone Han crossbow pierce Roman armor?

I don't think that their crossbows were that powerful. But the question is could it penetrate the scutum. Probably not.

Rome on a Quality vs Quantity basis.

The only advantage Han has is the numbers. Their cav was light compared to Persians (in b4 muh Carrhae) and easily matched by Roman Aux and their crossbows were weak as fuck compared to other bows the roman faced.

Rome was probably the only time in history that 'europe' beats china before the 17th century.

Recommended books on Han dynasty/Three Kingdoms era warfare?
Only thing I know is that professional soldiers weren't a thing and crossbow spam.

The germans and huns would win

>It's China = quantity all the time schtick.
>Their cav was light compared to Persians
Also motherfucking Chinks during the BCs had all kinds of cavalry Rome didn't have up until the late Empire period. Just who do you think the Han Dynasty's main foreign enemies were? They had horse archers before the Romans did, they got the Idea of Cataphracts from the Iranics before the Romans did, and in addition, left their own influences to the Nomads. Just who do you think introduced the High-Collar neckguards to ancient Nomadic cavalry? Just who do you think introduced the use of single-edged swords in cavalry to Nomadics?

In addition, the Han Dynasty defeated and destroyed a Steppe Nomad empire in that Empire's own fucking yard.

If anything, China's cavalry shits on Rome by a mile due to the sole reason that the Han Dynasty spent almost the entire 200-100s BC duking it out with Steppeniggers.

>all this sinoboo-ism

Hi Chang!

There's no reason to suggest why Han crossbows are weak.

If the theoretical calculations are sound then they pack quite a punch.

Heaviest standard 8 stone Han crossbow power = 516 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 4902 inch lbs
Heaviest Medieval crossbow found from Gallway = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inches powerstroke/2 = 4200 inch lbs
Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inches powerstroke/2 = 3676.5 inch pounds
Heavy Song dynasty bow made to pierce armor = 160 lbs draw weight * ~20 inches powerstroke/2 = 1600 inch pounds

>and their crossbows were weak as fuck compared to other bows the roman faced.
If Han crossbows were weak then they wouldn't have bothered using them against the Xiongnu.

The composite bow wasn't unknown to the Han either.

Chinese crossbows had the huge advantage of much longer bow-limbs, giving a lot of power to a fairly low draw weight. I don't know if they had any devices for drawing them though. A lot of the depictions I see show them using their legs to do it.

...

>I don't know if they had any devices for drawing them though.
The only Han era innovation I'm aware of is the grid sight.

Crossbow stirrup/belt claw postdate the Han.

I don't know which is worse. The rome-boos or the chinka-boos.

DUDE MUH INVINCIBLE INFANTRY vs DUDE MUH INVINCIBLE CAVALRY

Sinobooshit = Everything China does is better than Rome.

I just pointed out that Chink cavalry is glaringly better than Romes given their enmity with Steppenigs.

Hell anyone in Asia aces the shit out of Rome in terms of cavalry.

Rome and the Han had similarly sized militaries, but Rome's was fully professional, while the Han's was half conscripted. That's a pretty big quality difference right there.

In a war between empires, one battle, or even one campaign, wouldn't lead to ultimate victory for either side. The deciding factor would be, as in the world wars, economic might and fortitude. And the economy of Rome was millennia ahead of that of Han china. Rome was a mercantilist economy, driven as much by private investment and capitalist greed as it was by state demand for supplies. For example, the hydraulic mining that destroyed entire hillsides in Spain was the result of private enterprise. Crassus, arguably the richest man in history, got so staggeringly wealthy largely by (admittedly very underhanded) real estate and property development.

The Han Chinese on the other hand, spurned private enterprise, as Confucianism ranks merchants as some of the lowest of the low, leading to their major economic sectors vital to fighting a war (mineral production and refinement, food production, weapons manufacturing etc.) being almost entirely state run, and as such, by the height of both empires, infinitely inferior in capacity to Rome's pseudo-capitalist equivalent.

The end result, in this pseud's opinion, would be similar to a protracted war between the USSR and the USA circa 1980. In other words, the USSR, or Han China, might be able to field quality troops, and a LOT of them, compared to Rome's volunteer army and long recruit training program, but eventually they will be worn down, and eventually their weapon stockpiles will run out, their outposts and border infrastructure will be destroyed by war, and it will be a matter of who can continue supplying vast amounts of expensive materiel (who can build more planes, more ships, more tanks, or, who can build more full suits of armour, more ballistae, more arrows etc.), and on those terms, Han China was absolutely no equal to Rome.

I was under the impression that weapon and ore production was state run so as to completely control the arms market and so avoid revolts.

>anyone
korea? ;^)

In Rome, as far as I'm aware, there were both private and state owned weapon factories. With the state run fabricae existing to provide for the legions, and private factories existing to supply either the market, large consumers such as gladiatorial arenas or, at times, fill in for the state in a pinch.

The Empire did centralise weapons and armour production in their fabricae, but the goal was to provide uniform and quality equipment to their soldiers, rather than to exert political control, leaving private manufacturers to build whatever standard of equipment they liked, as they were not working off of imperial templates and standards.

How quickly the private arms industry could be levied into public service and brought up to standard if a gigantic war happened, I don't know, but the tools and the people were there.

And the biggest roman empire was in 107.

Neither would win a war. It'd end as a stalemate with Rome most likely taking the big battles depending on who the legatus was and making a few territorial gains.

But Rome simply wouldn't have the ability to finish off the Han and vice versa.

>but Rome's was fully professional, while the Han's was half conscripted.
No,Eastern Han(contemporary of the Roman Empire) was mostly professional.

>posting meme chart.
>Iron
The methodology used to estimate Han iron production contradicts archaeology(50< iron offices,multiple subsidiary sites/furnaces,) and the authors own claims(inputted value of 100 tons when the author claims several hundred tons)

The Roman estimate is literally taking a number out of thin air.

>Copper
The only Han estimate for Copper is based on coinage.

>Lead
Han used bamboo for piping. Liangzhi sediment shows a sharp increase during the Han dynasty

>Silver,Gold
Han used other metals for currency.

The Han had the prowess to fight protracted wars ie Xiongnu.

Unless Han China send armoured boats down a fortified river under the cover of fog with the intention of stealing arrows. Just saying.

That's XIV century shit tho, outside the thread scope.

Not to mention the availability of these metals would be based on geography.

Not sure what you're trying to imply by referring to an urban legend.

The Han Chinese regularly bought weapons from private ventures.

Their conscripts changed between 2 years service time mandatory to voluntary service as time changed. The state also has professional full time elite soldiers that stay in military for 30+ years, on top of their voluntary service.

Additionally, the Han Chinese (an infact just about any Chinese dynasties) had huge advantage in logistics department. They could readily field 200k+ armies on a regular basis. Each generals I believe would field about 80k with there being several generals in the state, on top of that, the state had their own standing army.

muh quantity vs quality is a MEME. In real world scenario, both empires had elite standing armies, private/state run industry, roughly equal in quality. With China having more quantity due to stability of the civil service/government.

Taking this piss mate.
Jeez non Commonwealth countries really don't have any sense of humour apaz.

>Additionally, the Han Chinese (an infact just about any Chinese dynasties) had huge advantage in logistics department.

This is simply not true.

Lets compare road networks.

>pelagios.dme.ait.ac.at/maps/greco-roman/

Can you supply a Chinese equivalent?

Indeed Romans had better road systems. However the Han Chinese were no slouches regarding roads. Most of their road was mainly for economy and local population, however the main highways were maintained by the state for state duties. They didn't expand the empire to the size greater than that of Europe by having no road system. Just not a very robust one that Rome had.

However logistics is not primarily roads, it the government's ability to manage goods/systems/people. This is my original intent. The Chinese capability to field armies across their borders and feed them and support them allowed them to expand and drive out the Xiongu (which later formed again in the west to become the Huns). Their civil service system is similar to the Republic however different too. Where as the republics were voted, the Chinese had transitioned to meritocratic system. The ability to manage government/cities/state relied on education/intellect more than prestigious/popularity.

>However logistics is not primarily roads, it the government's ability to manage goods/systems/people. This is my original intent. The Chinese capability to field armies across their borders and feed them and support them allowed them to expand and drive out the Xiongu

Roman logistics corps were leagues ahead of their Chinese counterparts. The reason for this is that Roman logistical operations weren't just the purview of the general staff, or even the command staff of a legion, every single Century had engineers and logistics officers as part of their number (generally 80 of the 100 were fighting men, the rest were engineers, logisticians and surgeons). each Century, similar to a modern infantry platoon, carried with it a heavy weapons team armed with a Scorpion or Polybolos, each Cohors carried with it the equipment required to build a fortified camp, which they built every single night and deconstructed every single morning, and each independent Legion carried with it government produced supplies capable of feeding and maintaining its soldiers for months.

Even the individual Legionaries carried on their person, as part of their, again, government supplied, kit, enough food to feed themselves for a minimum of 15 days, cooking utensils, entrenching tools sufficient to build earthworks such as trenches and barricades, stakes and nails and other constituent parts of wooden fortifications that they would, together, assemble daily. That's every single Legionary (of which there were over 200,000), of every single Legion.

This logistics structure that went down to the individual level, allowed Legions to march faster and further than any army of the pre-modern era, as they did not need to forage, they did not need to concern themselves with long baggage trains, but they were individually trained to construct earth, wood and stonework fortifications.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcina

...and the Chinese had a dedicated supply corps (The Commissioner for Supply, who answers to the Chancellory), and did supply depots. Which is what modern armies do nowadays.

Forget about having baggage trains or carrying your supplies themselves like the romans. There's literally a separate army taking care of that. It's one of the reasons the Chink army was able to campaign in the Steppes during the Xiongnu War.

The Cavalry's logistics however was answerable to the Master Coachman (a government post), since during the Xiongnu War, the Cavalry became its own branch of the Han Dynasty army in order to be an independent force capable of Nomad-tier mobility. As such, Steppe Nomads were often hired not only as scouts, but also to teach Nomadic camping & logistic techniques to Han Cavalrymen. Which is why the Yurt in China is a military tent, and why the Chinese started tying horsehairs to their spears in emulation of the Nomads they fought against/alongside.

And oh yeah: Wheelbarrows. Laughable right? Not quite. Wheelbarrows meant a porter can carry more supplies than usual and it eliminates reliance on mules, which in itself requires separate supply and care.

I think the real question here is which empire had the best capacity to adapt? Would Romans quickly figure out the lethality of heavy cavalry and crossbows? Would the Chinese learn o never face Rome in a big formation battle?

Rome has superior production capabilities

I think the more interesting question is whether they would fight at all. Why bother? They've both got their own problems, and China, at least Tang China, always admired Rome as something close to equals on the other side of the world

Chinese preferred canals to roads.

You actually mean 117, right after Trajan rekt Parthia.

Yes they would look at Rome and Persia they had absolutely no reason to fight but they did for centuries eventually leading to the Arab invasions.

meme chart see

Rome and the Persian empires both had the issue of having their borders reach into lands that were very difficult to defend, and one of those, the levant, was common to both. Additionally, control the economy that moved through there could mean the long term sustainability of ruling it.

Conflict had to happen.

I read that the chinese had supply depots everywhere for their wars. This also helped alleviate the supply issues when dragging those huge numbers around.

>and China, at least Tang China, always admired Rome as something close to equals on the other side of the world
I think that was Han, actually. But yeah, I remember somebody here described the relationship of Han China and Rome as akin to long distance schoolgirl lesbian love.

I read a bit on that, ignoring the numbers, it looks like the Han period had the governments limit the iron production and put it into state monopoly. This was mainly to fund/pay for their war with the Xiongnu

Rome

It was more like fascination with a foreign land wrapped in mystery. Neither Empire really knew enough about the other to have anything like admiration for the other (romantic as the concept might seem), they only had vague reports that had to go through several middle-men and languages before. The closest thing is Chinese sources that state that Romans (Da Qing as they called them) were 'like Chinese' and virtuous, or something to that effect.

Fair enough, then

>Rome was fully professional
No. During times of wars, they relied on conscripts.Kids as young as 14 were conscripted. When that wasn't enough, they sought the barbarians inside their camp. Eventually Romans became barbarians themselves and started wearing pants.

Is there a good book or maybe podcast that will lay out the basics of general Chinese history? My knowledge of it is basically
>Han: BC to early AD. Unimpressive ceramic work but decent iron.
>Tang: sometime around 6th or 7th century to Renaissanceish. Nice ceramics, liked camels
>qing: Renaissanceish to modern period, got fucked by euro powers.
>WWII is classic US v USSR feuding, Soviets win out
>Maoism happens, then authoritarian capitalist state
At some point there's mongols and the whole thing falls apart into massive wars a few times. Also, buddhism sect schisms and stuff.

Please poke holes in this.

not in this timeframe, the legions at the height of the empire were 50% trained, professional, almost fanatically diciplined infantrymen, 50% trained, professional, niche specialized local auxiliaries.

>Who wins this war?
Rome. It doesn't even matter who has the better skills or technology or armor Romans had insane desire to win at all costs and never ever ever surrender. Any normal people and any normal civilization would have surrendered ten times during the Second Punic War considering what kind of damage and humiliation Hannibal was inflicting upon them and their losses at Cannae and other major battles and that Hannibal was rampaging across the countryside and constantly threatening Rome itself and the fact that their allies were abandoning them.

But instead Rome just behaved almost like an AI, each time they lost they regrouped and tried again. If one strategy didn't work they tried another, when it seemed like it was impossible to beat Hannibal on the battlefield they resolved not to engage him at all and finally they just decided to ignore the rampaging warlord in the middle of their territory and instead proactively attack Carthage itself forcing Carthage to withdraw Hannibal.

That war alone showed to what kind of insane lengths Rome was willing to go to win.

>China without numerical superiority
kek

>The Han would have superior cavalry (stirrups)

The Romans had already been barbarianed when the stirrup came into wide use in China.

"The first dependable representation of a rider with paired stirrups was found in China in a Jin Dynasty tomb near Nanjing dated approximately about 322 C.E.; an earlier representation of a single mounting stirrup was found in a tomb figuring near Changsha that dated to 302 C.E.[21][22][23] The stirrup appeared to be in widespread use across China by 477 C.E.[24][25]"

Tactically, the Romans have the advantage thru better command, control and training but strategically, I would think the Han would have tighter control over their empire and thus would be better at a very long range war of conquest.

Rome had a wider economic base and far greater production though China had more wealth.

>>Tang: sometime around 6th or 7th century to Renaissanceish
T'ang were long gone by the Renaissance period in Europe.
It went T'ang -> divided period -> Song -> Yuan (the Mongols) -> Ming -> Qing (Manchu invaders) -> Chinese Republic and Maoists.

Id say they were pretty evenly matched, cant really predict who would win, too many unknowns and variables

Hi /stormfront/

>rekt
>possessions don't hold
>overstretching Roman boarders, burdening the treasury to the breaking point, and expending reserve legions from the western fronts of the empire ultimately that leads to Hadrian return all possessions and territory back to the Arsacids
>and the returning troops bring a massive plague into Roman lands in the Near East and Southern Europe
Only long term return on Trajan's delusions of grandeur at trying to emulate Alexander the Great before him was showing how tenuous Roman control was and the fact that it was the last great offensive made by the Roman Empire to conqueror foreign territory.

The Han had a massive trade and military treaty of mutual cooperation with the Parthian Empire. In fact they were very reliant on the Parthians to keep Iranic steppe tribals away from the Silk Road in Central Asia. They had a pretty healthy respect for "Anxi" or whatever they called them. In fact I think they had one short war with Parthian Empire which defeated a Han border army but relationships were warmed over the importance of the Silk Road for both empires.

Both sides have shown they are very capable at taking losses during war. China however as a civilization is much more robust in supporting losses and wins even with huge mega casualties that would make the entire Roman army wet their pants. By that, I mean casualties dozens of dozens time more than Romans army size would be able to field.

If you're trying to win over who can take more damage and who can persevere in long run, make no mistake, China's long history also a very bloody one.

Here's some close numbers. The Punic War costed about 1.5m lives. The warring states of China that took place about 200 years before took the same number of casualties. The Yellow Turban Rebellion took about 4.5m lives. The The Kingdoms took about 25x more lives than the Punic War at about 38 million. These three are all within couple hundred years of each other.

>In fact I think they had one short war with Parthian Empire which defeated a Han border army but relationships were warmed over the importance of the Silk Road for both empires.
Is there a source on this? The closest thing I can think of is Talas considering the Persian commanders there but that's many centuries in the future.

If there's a source, it probably stems from the Chinese side. I heard of a war between Parthia and the Han as well but something along the lines of a stalemate.

During the early Han campaigns against the huns the Chinese fielded cavalry armies at least as large as a hundred thousand, with the logistical support of four hundred thousand infantry. Though these were massively costly endeavors I don't think the Romans could have fielded cavalry armies that large.

Of course they wouldn't because back then Roman was entirely specialized around its heavy infantry and only used cavalry in small roles as scouts, chasing down routed enemies and its size and numbers were restricted entirely to the equites (knightly class) who sat in the social strata above the regular plebeians and below or roughly on par with the equestrian/senatorial class.

Don't forget the whole reason the Roman Empire was so great in the first place. They adapted, and fast. First Punic War, they were forced to develop a naval machine that could destroy the Carthaginians, and quickly. Catafractoii, developed from the effectiveness of their Persian/Steppe counterparts. If the crossbows are worth using, then the Romans would simply make them, and most likely better. If the Han use stirrups, the Romans would see them and start using them immediately. The whole point of the Roman war machine was its adaptability.

You act as if the Romans developed their own cataphracts within a short time, it took centuries of successive conflict and wars to introduce cataphracts to their military ranks and originally they were heavily dependent on Sarmatians, Armenians, and others who were particularly well skilled at horsemenship in the first place before ethnic Romans were doing it themselves.

They adapt. But over time, not instantly.

This, Rome suffered three huge defeats against Hannibal before adapting to him.

>warring states of China that took place about 200 years before took the same number of casualties
The warring states period of Europe lasted till 1945, with deaths amounting to billions

>deaths amounting to billions
[citation needed]

>the Punic War cost 1.5m lives
The first one? I find that unlikely.

> badass chinese crossbow

Romans had manuballistae and arcuballistae.

And if you mean automatic, they could have built polyboloi (machine-gun catapult)

Gastraphetes had far less draw weight than the Han crossbow.

Han had their own acruballistas.

How is it ? Did they use some kind of lever to pull the string ?