Rome vs China circa 0 CE/AD

Yeah that's definitely true. But a lot of people in threads like these seem to think crossbows are some kind of super weapon that can punch through shield, armor and bone in one shot.

Sorta agreed. In real war, the rate of fire/range would be the real teller for any missile fires. However the Chinese were doing crossbow volley fires during that time period.

The crossbows, however, were known to pierce armors as they were tipped with metal. Chinese started using metal tipped bolts crossbow during early warring states period. Some 500 years before the start of common era.

where is the right image from

Anyone remembers what was the result of a last thread?

Zulus definitely take this on account of their steel weapons and sheer number advantage.

>start of common era
Found the jew

legionaries take this

Most conclusion given the scenario would end witih Chinese victory.

Its obvious that Rome can't field that amount of men, or the cavalries. Its also bit unfair to give Chinese crossbows, if Rome had crossbow legions of equal fire power/rate then it might equal out.

Mongols take this, once they outclass the Mamluks and Apaches with their superior horsemanship they'd run buckwild over everyone else

>OCTAVIVS

>Imagine if they are both on the outskirts of their Empire and the border between the two are connected (no Persia/Mid east) Therefore logistics of travelling across the desert/across persia is no long an issue.

That would make the grandest alliance ever seen by mankind

>Rome could have bordered China instead of the shitdick Achaemenid successors

WE COULD BE EXPLORING THE STARS BY NOW

Defender's advantage though? I don't like this unwarranted chineseabooing. The assumption in always for X to invade China, no matter what the scenario. If China tried invading Rome, Rome would win.

I don't get that pic. Those 28 legions are all professional, and in 1AD they're all volunteers. If needed, Rome would have the manpower for more, especially if they started conscripting.
Also the auxilia units weren't all quingenarians, most were miliarians. So at least you should put it at 19k. Not to mention they were also almost exclusively volunteers and barbarians only in the sense that they weren't roman. They were the warrior class and best soldiers from all the conquered people in the empire, from eastern cataphracts to cretan archer to balearian slingers to batavian warriors.
On the other hand, the Han's professional army was just the 100k or therearound troops, the rest was conscripts on a 2 years tour.
It's an extremely disingenuous way to present a comparison. The two militaries were set up too differently to just select an arbitrary amount of troops and expect to have a fair comparison.

>the two are connected (no Persia/Mid east)
Whoever crosses the Tarim Basin and the Hexi corridor would lose.

>But a lot of people in threads like these seem to think crossbows are some kind of super weapon that can punch through shield, armor and bone in one shot.
The standard Han crossbow was no joke being superior in range and penetration than the composite bow of the Xiongnu.

Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * ~.70 efficiency/2 = 2573.6 inch lbs = 291 Joules
historum.com/asian-history/124269-evolution-chinese-bows-myth-manchu-bow.html

Draw weight is derived from administrative records(Juyuan slips),powerstroke from archaeological finds and efficiency is largely theoretical(based on quarrel weight and prod material?).

100K professional army for Han dynasty is just pure delusion. The cavalry alone would be 250K by year 0. Only time 100K army made sense were during period of Three Kingdoms when China was split into three separate kingdoms. Even the weakest kingdom had about 100-150K standing army.

On top of that, "Romans could conscript too" argument doesn't work out quite well. Chinese conscription system was well maintained and worked due to how efficient it was. 2 years mandatory service, and then a months service to local system every year till you're 50. Also when in war, you're recalled once more if needed. Its not like you're completely done with civic duty once you've done the 2 year service. The way to avoid the conscription after the 2 year service was paying extra fee/tax.

the Chinese are always inept at war when invaded thanks to a lack of cohesion or direction

Rome would win on offense or defense (granted they had good supply lines on offense, which weren't really a thing back then)

the only thing the Chinese are good at is fighting each other

To put that in perspective, the English longbow which could pierce plate armors generates about 100-150 Joules and has about 150 lb draw weight.

So these crossbows can easily penetrate plate armor.

Crusaders take this because God is with them.

>On top of that, "Romans could conscript too" argument doesn't work out quite well.
It really does work tho. In Augustus' time the army was basically in peacetime mode. During the last civil war both Octavian and Anthony had armies in the 200k range.
It's downright retarded to think those 250k troops being the entirety of the roman manpower pool.

>On the other hand, the Han's professional army was just the 100k or therearound troops
Not during the Eastern Han. The Eastern Han had at least 300,000 professionals stationed on the frontiers.
historum.com/ancient-history/96356-african-empire-question-time-rome-5.html

>On top of that, "Romans could conscript too" argument doesn't work out quite well.
Not that user but this comparison really depend on the timeframe.

Western Han had a theoretically larger manpower pool(universal conscription) while the Eastern Han had far more professional volunteers(though conscription wasn't done with entirely either).

It works on short term to raise numbers, but without a system in place like China had, which had mandatory service and upkeep of service, it become horribly inefficient. This is why the number of legion was reduced as it was too costly to maintain for Rome.

>short term
The roman army stayed on those levels basically from the Mithridatic wars to halfway into Octavian's rule. That's hardly short term. Not to mention that every multiyear conflict in Han China basically ends up causing widespread famines, so they're hardly efficient either.

4th or 5th century Rome would be a lot better equipped to take on the Han imo, since they had a crazily better cavalry force at that stage.

Chinese crossbows of the time were nowhere near as powerful as medieval crossbows though.

>English longbow which could pierce plate armors
meme

>So these crossbows can easily penetrate plate armor.
Depends on the thickness of the plate and how far the bolt traveled. I would wait until a proper reconstruction can be made.

>400 maoris at full mana.

Given how mana is transmitted that would imply all 400 are the offsprings of royal sibling incest.

>since they had a crazily better cavalry force at that stage

Wrong. This is pop history shit. Rome had good auxiliary cavalry since the late republic. Not a whole lot changed between then and the fourth century

>anything but the navy seal winning

I wouldn't be so sure. The difference isn't in draw force, but rather the power stroke.

What the medieval crossbows had in advantage over the Han dynasty crossbows were efficiency. They were handheld and hand reloaded rather than fully bodied reload of Han dynasty. While weaker draw force, they had much longer power stroke to compensate, thus it carry out equal or greater than the smaller medieval era crossbows.

>Chinese crossbows of the time were nowhere near as powerful as medieval crossbows though.
Medieval crossbows were far weaker.

Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * ~.70 efficiency/2 = 2573.6 inch lbs = 291 Joules
Ralph Payne Gallway’s Medieval siege crossbow = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inch powerstroke * .45 efficiency/2 = 1890 inch lbs = 214 Joules
Standard 15th century German winched crossbow = 1000 lbs draw weight * 6 inch powerstroke *.45 efficiency/2 = 1350 inch pounds = 153 Joules
historum.com/asian-history/124269-evolution-chinese-bows-myth-manchu-bow.html

[Roundabout intensifies]

Thats short term in historical stand point. a long term = centuries, dynasty wide, or atleast the majority of the empire.

Thats way earlier than 0AD, the fact that it says late Republic but Rome was an empire since 31BC proves it.

>0 AD

50 samurai and ninja

they have katana they can cut anything no need to argue further

Oh look its this thread again.

FUCK OFF TO

400 maoris on account of them not being black.

lot of them are specialized over others so it's hard to get a fair fight

like saying who would win in a fight between Squirtle, Bulbasaur, and Charmander

China has a hard enough time with logistics within their empire. So did the Romans.

Supply depot > Logistic train

>nips get to use ninjutsu, ninja magic for you gaijins, and blades folded over a million times
how is this even fair

They went from having one cavalry troop for every 70 infantry to having one cavalry troop for every 4 infantry in the late empire. How is that not much better?

During the Chinese campaign against the Xiognu in the desert, the Chinese logistics could only field them for 100 days at a time. The Han dynasty would do yearly cleanup of Xiongnu tribes like this until they were pacified.

>100 Crusaders
>Jean D'arc

Why?

>Calvary

Reeeeeeeeeeee
Learn to fucking spell you fucking plebian

Navy seal

That picture is wrong. Romans used cavalry extensively by the 0 AD, including cataphracts. That's how they held off the Persians.

Their only vulnerability was against Hunnic horse archers because the tactics were completely different to what they were used to, including feigns, fake retreats, ambushes, and a style of warfare not familiar in Europe at the time.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites_cataphractarii

I meant to say *that's how they held off the Parthians

Rome's willingness to strive for victory at all costs coupled with their ability to adapt and counter other enemies strategies would put them at a better advantage as the war goes on. If it goes to late game, Rome wins. If the Chinese use a rush strategy, we'd see a Roman gg by the 30 min mark

Roman legions were real disciplined professionals who served Rome, Han Dynasty soldiers were just peasants mustered by local lords.

Also, given what we know of history, the Chinese may well have adapted better to rule by a foreign power than the Romans, with the examples of the Yuan, Jin, and Qing Dynasties to show how foreign invaders could insert themselves into the role of caretakers of the Chinese civilization and effectively becoming Chinese themselves.

Your sources say that it wasn't until the late Roman Empire those cavalry became "extensive". By that, it was mostly used in Eastern Rome (6700) vs 2000 in western Rome. That's nearly 300 years after "0 AD"

>Roman.
>Cavalry

>Roman
>Cavalry

500 BCE called, they want their Warring States historian back.

>command+f
>No mentions about the fiscal or bureaucratic relevance to war

All of you should kill yourselves

This is more of a battle than a minor war to both parties and both sides can handle the loss logistics issue locally.

>50 Samurai + 50 Ninjas

I always hate how ninjas are brought up at these charts. Are Ninjas going to hide behind a plant without armor or shield, and stealth kill the enemy in open battle?

Ow and probably 100 Mongols under Genghis will win

??

IIRC there was a theory that survivors of Crassus's expedition against the Parthians may have made it all the way to China?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhizhi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liqian

>Liqian (pronounced Legion)

Alternative theory proposed is, they were remnants/decendants of Alexander the Great's army.

>historyoftheancientworld.com/2012/07/descendants-of-alexander-the-greats-army-fought-in-ancient-china-historian-finds/

Still thats a minor force, roughly 100 or so

>Liqian (pronounced Legion)
>thinking Chinese 2000 years ago sounded anything like Chinese today
>thinking the Latin word "legion" was pronounced like it is in English
where to even begin

Its an approximate you fucking retard.

We can trace many approximation of modern words to 2000 year ago and they would still sound relatively same.

To elaborate on just how dumb this is, Liqian would have been pronounced approximately like "relken" in the time period under discussion, while the Classical Latin word for legion was pronounced roughly like "leg-ee-oh"

>We can trace many approximation of modern words to 2000 year ago and they would still sound relatively same.
Not even remotely. See
and try actually looking up what the linguistic reconstructions are before bullshitting next time.

Not him but he isn't entirely wrong.

The modern Istanbul is pretty plainly the ancient Constantinopolis, it shares the major plosives and the 'stan' syllable

I don't agree in the legion case but in general it's not out of the question

In Chinese, Li could've been pronounced as "Ri" Qian could've been pronounced as "ken" or "jen" or ki-hen or whatever similar sounding word.

Ancient Chinese and Modern Mandarin are widely different as ancient Chinese is more guttral (think German), but Mandarin still tried to keep some basic pronunciations.

Yeah, it's not out of the question, but especially with Chinese it's very unlikely.
Chinese has gone through a fuckton and a half of sound changes in the past 3000 years, including its whole tonogenesis deal.

For example, Old Chinese:

kron kron shja ku
zlǝʔ gal tjǝ tju
kiwʔ lewʔ ɦljǝwgʷ naʔ
klun ʔslǝʔ kʰuʔ gu
shrum shral graŋ shǝs
ʔslalʔ gʷǝʔ ru tjǝ
kiwʔ lewʔ ɦljǝwgʷ naʔ
ŋas mids gu tjǝ

would become modern:

Guān guān jū jiū,
zài hé zhī zhōu.
Yǎotiǎo shūnǚ,
jūnzǐ hǎo qiú.
Cēncī xìng cài,
zuǒyòu liú zhī.
Yǎotiǎo shūnǚ,
wù mèi qiú zhī.

>In Chinese, Li could've been pronounced as "Ri"
Close, Zhengzhang reconstructs specifically *reːl or *rel
>Ancient Chinese and Modern Mandarin are widely different as ancient Chinese is more guttral (think German), Mandarin still tried to keep some basic pronunciations.
It tried to maintain some rhymes, at least in the literary language, but frankly the changes and timescales involved were just too enormous for any close preservation.

I would like to point out that one the strength is based on a bit of math from people on the internet from historum.com in 2011.It is not professional work, and as far as I know no one has made effort to do reconcrustion based testing. Two from the same forum there is this...

>historum.com/asian-history/90561-6-stone-han-crossbow-power-revealed.html

>6 Stone Han Crossbow = 125 joules
>Until new reconstructions are made, this is the most accurate approximation of the energy of a 6 Stone Han Crossbow. Even if the Han proved to be 50% more efficient, this still gives a maximum of 188 joules of energy.

If a set of numbers look far to high then it may well be far to high. Also here is the full chart

Typical 6 stone strength Han crossbow's power = 387 lbs draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * ~.70 efficiency/2 = 2573.6 inch lbs = 291 Joules
Ralph Payne Gallway’s Medieval siege crossbow = 1200 lbs draw weight * 7 inch powerstroke * .45 efficiency/2 = 1890 inch lbs = 214 Joules
Standard 15th century German winched crossbow = 1000 lbs draw weight * 6 inch powerstroke *.45 efficiency/2 = 1350 inch pounds = 153 Joules
Marsden’s reconstruction of Greek Gastraphetes = 150 lbs draw weight * 20 inch powerstroke *.75 efficiency/2 = 1125 inch pounds = 127 Joules
Typical heavy draw longbow on Mary Rose = 150 lbs draw weight * 20 inch powerstroke *.70 efficiency/2 = 1200 inch = 136 Joules
Standard 2.7 stone Song crossbow = 356 lb draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * 0.70 efficiency/2 = 2367 inch lbs = 268 Joules
Standard heavy 4 stone Shenbi crossbow = 528 lb draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * 0.70 efficiency/2 = 3511 inch lbs = 398 Joules
Typical 7 dou Song composite war bow = 92 lbs draw weight * ~28 inch powerstroke *.85-.90 efficiency/2 = ~1120 inch pounds = ~130 Joules
Heavy standard 1 stone 2 dou Song composite war bow = 158 lbs draw weight * ~28 inch powerstroke *.85-.90 efficiency/2 = ~1910 inch pounds = ~ 220 Joules

Con..

Why would a song dynasty be markedly weaker then a Han dynasty crossbow? In the Song era armor was both more common and much better designed then in the Han era.

That should be be a red flag for the number set.

Han wins by far
Much more manpower

In 25 BC the Roman Empire had 56.8 million people. In a census taken in 2 AD, the population of the Han empire was 57 million people. The Roman Empire may of done very little in taking new lands, but its population was still growing. For the Han 2 Ad looks to be the high point of the range of 50 BC to 50 AD.

So other way around.

>It is not professional work
Of course,that's why I noted that reconstructions would solve the issue once and for all.

Both the draw weight and powerstroke are supported by textual records and archaeologically excavations respectively. The key component is prod efficiency. Han crossbows used composite prods while European crossbows used steel prods.

>Han Xin II
He doesn't actually refute the calculations,read HackeneyedScribe's reply.

>Why would a song dynasty be markedly weaker then a Han dynasty crossbow?
>291 Joules vs 268 joules
>Standard heavy 4 stone Shenbi crossbow = 528 lb draw weight * ~19 inch powerstroke * 0.70 efficiency/2 = 3511 inch lbs = 398 Joules
I don't understand your reasoning.

>read HackeneyedScribe's reply.

Okay, fair point. It is at lest 187 Joules, likely higher.

>I don't understand your reasoning.
Sorry I though the Shenbi was a Ming era corssbow, not a late song Dynasty crossbow.

I guess the really issue that have with the numbers for all the Chinese crossbow really goes back to what I have read on the muzzle energy of early 16th century black powber weapons. Namely that is was around 297 to 330 joules for the age of exploration Arquebus. The Ming era accounts ( namely 1520 to 1548) of bandits armed with Portuguese made Arguebus make it rather clear that all the ranged weapons that were available to regional militia were heavily outclassed. During the start of the same time frame European troops armed European crossbows did effectively face down Europeans armed with the Arguebus and give as good as they got.

If the chinese crossbow was that effective how did that happen? Bolt design or tactic issues maybe? Even those have a issue with the fact they were facing down bandits in large groups ( 200 to 700 was normal) not a well trained professional army.

Romans don't have a universal conscript system. Most of Roman empire were barbaric/non-roman.. Hence Romans can't draw man power from their numbers.

>Bowmen require months/years of training
I hit 11 bullseyes with 18 shots at 80 feet the first time I touched the bow, it takes even less skill en masse
now, my little personal anecdote might not seem valid to you, but it doesn't take "years" of training, to learn to draw and fire a bow effectively, especially when you don't have to aim...on horseback is a different story

>Namely that is was around 297 to 330 joules for the age of exploration Arquebus.
Yea I don't take the number at face value,I'm guessing there's some hidden factor that will impact the efficiency used in the equation(trigger size,quarrel weight,angle of penetration etc.)

What is clear is the average Han crossbow would out range and deliver more joules than a contemporary composite bow.

Albeit with high reload times/awkward spanning process,reduced accuracy(partially solved with the grid sight their descendants lost) and their general bulkiness.

>If the chinese crossbow was that effective how did that happen?
iirc Ming crossbows used short powerstrokes and bamboo prods with some late Ming innovations that resembled earlier crossbows.

This blog discusses some criticisms of the Han crossbow(though there's a Han tomb mural with a winched crossbow)
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/09/Ming-Dynasty-crossbow.html

Didn't Maori and Zulu have access to fire arms?
Also if a SEAL was in say a highly defensive position (Thermopylae for example) with clear sight + a M240 and a few tactic shield placed around him he could probably take most of them

This thread is so fucking stupid

Shitty normie ideas of history, user

Anyone got that meme image of what caused the downfall of Rome? It has a guy in one of the panels going:

>EVERY FUCKING THREAD.

/thread

Rome has no logistics capabilities past their sea. Meanwhile, China has logistics capabilities down even on the furthest regions in the desert and the ability to launch seasonal wars every year with 100K+ easily.

Does the seal hav access to his network of spies around the USA?

>Romans don't have a universal conscript system. Most of Roman empire were barbaric/non-roman

so conscription?