I want an answer

>founder of the Empire was its only good ruler.
Pathetic.

Even more pathetic is that Panturkshits only know Modu Chanyus name from Chinese sources.

Ha, reminds me of Japan claiming to be an older civilization than China when they only know the names of the earliest Japanese rulers from Chinese sources.

Reminder the chinese dug the longest artificial canal for moving troops across the country.

I believe that that the Han have the edge but it all depends on the commanders. If the Romans have a better commander i think they can defeat the Han.

The Han Great Wall was also further north than the modern one.

Not
This
Thread
Again

Didn't the romans produce steel on a much larger scale though?

we're talking of the whole of the Chinese military vs a single Roman legion now?

did the Han have a single army or did they have independent units like Rome kept her legions?

There were many smaller groups of unit. I think the smallest is 5 man group with 1 logistics support that relayed flag signals and such. Unlike the Romans, the Chinese had clear chain of command. 100 m leader, 1000m leader, 10k, 80k, and so on. The largest maybe 80k or so, then groups of general join together to lead multiple fronts. Central gov also had ~100k standby army for its own personal use.

okay, but what would amount to a single independent, self-reliant "army"?

~80k led by a general.

that's around the size of a legion plus auxilia and cavalry alae

suppose for the time it was just optimal numbers.

Umm legion is 5000, aux:legion is around 50:50 so it would be ~@10k. There are smaller 10k subdivisions in the Han army. The 10k man also there. Then again we can divide even further in smaller independent units of 5k or 1k or so on. As each small units have a clear leader, they can all theoretically operate independently.

chinks can't beat europeans. they're inferior

But but muh western power. Nothing in the face of this earth us superior to the western civilization...

How about this.
Scipio Afrikanus vs Zhuge Liang
Who will win?

bump

scipio if it rains

>in less than 500 years a single city conquered more area than an entire race in less in its entirety .

Gee I wonder who's better at war

That's a comfy map.

Not this x vs y bullshit again. This discovery channel pop history has nothing to do with actual history. There's no way to actually predict how a possible fight between the two would've gone

Please off yourselves, even if you're trolling

This match-up makes no sense. If you're looking for a Chinese counterpart for Scipio then you want Han Xin or Bai Qi. Zhuge Liang was a statesman and politician.

>trees on the Arabian peninsula

Romans had pretty clear chains of command on the smaller scale, with the decanus (10 man unit), centurion, then the centurion of the primus pilus rank heading up the cohort (~600 men). The whole point of the Romans adopting the cohort and abandoning the maniple was so that legions, when in combat, were made of essentially "replaceable parts" that could be moved from one unit to the next, as opposed to the 3-4 rank system used before.

Admittedly, once you get to auxiliaries and higher chains of command, stuff gets a little fucky with legates, tribunes, etc., but to say that there wasn't a clear chain of command is too discrediting to the romans.

And the Romans somehow can't reverse engineer the crossbow after the first battle because...?

There's trees in the arabian peninsula. To put them in the atabian desert is still retarded.

This. They adopted literally every enemy weapon they saw as useful, and less advanced crossbows were not unknown in the Mediterranean so the concept was not alien to romans.

Romans couldn't really "reverse" engineer the horse nomads.

Because that just opens up more questions on what the current situation is and what resources both sides have at their disposal.

Reverse engineering will go both ways, too, making questions of terrain, geographic location, and resources doubly important.

the chinese defeated their steppe nomads

Steppe nomads that numbered 10-20x larger

The Xiongnu at one point had ~300K cavalry army trapped the Han emperor and his army.

some oc

daily reminder the chinkbow wasn't even levered, it was just a bow placed sideways on a stick. daily reminder the parthian bow was far far more deadly

Late Roman legions fought the Han Chinese I believe. They did well against them and mixed with the locals.
The lost legion.

They already had ballistae, which is best crossbow.

Fabius btfo Liang.

saved desu
>muh slips, muh 1200 lbs draw-weight

nah bro thats a proved fake story

can anybody prove this or is it just bait?

yeah no, they likely didn't fight the Han. But there were legit Romans in Central Asia. Like dude the Black Sea literally exists.

Just look at this pos
>chinese engineering

Not sure if it was the Han, but the Chinese have documented stories of battles against people whose strategy greatly resembled that of a Roman legion.

don't forget they used commonly used *horn* as a composite.

Prove that Parthian bow is stronger? Absolutely not.

The only evidence for that is a group of soldiers that fought in a "fish scale formation" and a village called Liqian where they have green eyes.

>can anybody prove this or is it just bait?
Shitty bait. Han crossbows had high draw weights and long power strokes,both of which are attested by archaeology.

The only thing that remains to be tested is efficiency and quarrel weight.
historum.com/asian-history/69030-han-dynasty-crossbow.html

yeah dude. Do you have a better explanation?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liqian#Theories_regarding_origins_of_inhabitants

HOMER
H
DUBS
>People with normatively Caucasoid traits and/or who spoke Indo-European languages lived in areas that are now part of Gansu and Xinjiang centuries before the Romans, including the Yuezhi, Wusun, Basmyls, Tocharians, and some prehistoric Siberian populations

PREHISTORIC
SIBERIAN
POPULATIONS
>Genetic testing in 2005 revealed that 56% of the DNA of some Zhelaizhai residents could be classified as Caucasoid, but did not determine their origins.[9]

Its possible the guy is confusing the repeating crossbow with the actual crossbow. The repeating crossbow is bit weaker in draw weight but makes up for that by making it semi-automatic.

On the other hand there are ever larger versions of the crossbows which require multiple people. And some that need to be put on static objects and are similar to the Greek crossbow in regards to siege-tech size. But those are more rarer.

>semi-automatic
>repeating crossbow

Most likely Greeco-Bactrian soldiers whom utilized Alexander's formation system or may have updated it.

yeah dude it's possible I suppose, cultural diffusion is a thing.

He clearly linked which is the standard 6 stone(375lb) military crossbow.

Repeating crossbows are meme tier weapons.
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/09/unique-weapon-of-ming-dynasty-zhu-ge-nu.html

*387lb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations#Hypothetical_military_contact

>inb4 chinese faggots try to use Y-dna as refutation
lol

Uh... Han won that battle.

bump

>Roman
>Cavalry

Omg holy shit. Went to the wiki page for Roman vs Han economy and some butthurt Sinoboo has reversed the stats. Pic related, they used to Be the other way around

en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires

Zhang's edit aside.

Wagner's estimates are baseless. He uses 19th century Qing's economy and uses that as an estimate to Han dynasty's capacity. And that estimate only accounts for the official iron ore production by the state, not the individuals or guilds.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Salt_and_Iron

An interesting debate took place on whether or not state should continue monopolizing or whether or not it should be left to the free market. Hmmm where have I seen this discussion before. Needless to say, they monopolized the iron industry but the cruel and unusual punishments were abolished (like cutting noses). Needless to say, there probably were a good chunk of blackmarket for privatized iron since the industry doesn't disappear just because the state says so.

braaaaaap

But the Han won, dumbass.

Did you check the source user? It seems to be legit

I think Rome has better chance because European men are stronger, in time before fire-arms it is important.

Strength is balanced by skill. It's more up to the equipment each Empires had.

This map is so misleading; as soon as Trajan died Hadrian ceded most of Mesopotamia and other conquered lands back to the original owners, because they couldn't keep hold of it.

You also clearly know fuck all about China too.

Even then, at it's height in 117 AD the Roman Empire was smaller than the Western Han Dynasty Empire was in 50 BC: Rome controlled 5.0 million km2 of land, compared to China's 6 million km2.

China's empire at the time was objectively larger, and they forged it in 200 years.

Here's my source for the land-mass numbers:

>jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jwsr/article/view/369/381

The commandaries in Korea is misporportioned.

That line is bit small too. The Chinese fighting battles well past that and close to Afghan/Bactria. They were also fighting battles well into inner mongolia/xiongnu holdouts.

Rome can easy hire a lot of mercenaries from Africa

Lol no it was not

China can easy hire a lot of mercenaries from the Steppes

You didn't understand him. For that user, most of Han territory in the map doesn't count as conquest since they were part of China already. In fact those territories work for the argument that rome did more with less, in the eyes of that user, and therefore the mention of a "whole race" being unable to match the conquests of "a single city".

Take it as you want.

They did, its called the Auxilla units. They limit that to what the legions numbers are so Romans wont have to deal with barbarian army revolt.

Romans made extensive use of horse nomad auxiliares.

They hired former horse nomads in small numbers. That's extensive?

Top kek

It's not posible, it's a reality that we had greeks and hellenized locals in central asia.

Chinese are so fucking autistic

You can make 130lb hornbows you dip

Extensive in the sense that they did it all the time. And sarmatians are by no means "former" nomads. Also, the numbers they used in reality are irrelevant since those numbers depend on necessity, you can expect them to recruit more light cavalry if they're fighting an enemy that requires it.

So if you're describing the Roman use of hiring nomads to do it as "extensive", then what does that make the Chinese method? Limitless? Perfect? Godlike? The Chinese employed the steppe nomads all the time like the Romans, but they did so in numbers that dwarfed anything the Romans did. They also created their own internal cavalry division that completely eclipses the entirety of Roman legion.

Come on, use the proper descriptive words for these events. Roman use of the nomads was limited at best. The Chinese would be extensive. Nothing is godlike or perfect.

When you conflate the Roman achievements, it means the equal has to be done to other other side, which creates issues.

Keep the MUH ANCESTORS to minimum and stick to reality.

inflate*

>meanwhile in rome

another China Vs Rome thread and another actual conversation derailed by racism

WEW LAD

bump

The question is shit.
The roman republic and empire together existed almost 2000 years. Which period are you even refering to? The respective armies have great differences.

That been said: in the magical case of a war between these two. China would win. It played the game of massive relatively well equipped and trained armies better.

anime!

The Romans are literally the most advanced people that ever lived go fuck yourself

Who's invading
Rome only fights defensive wars

I'm a total Romaboo, but the Chinese have the edge on this one. It's not that the Romans couldn't win, but everything favors the Chinese.