ROME VS CHINA

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/GQ8Wwvnhctk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

pls no

youtu.be/GQ8Wwvnhctk

Whites always win.

Rome easily

Why would you say that?

China had a much higher population

No one cares, Cheng

Sure thing Hong Dong.

Why are chinks so insecure?

Also, stop making threads like this.

Lol no they didn't. They had comparable populations

Nice projection Julius

I don't know how more than 1 million people would be "comparable"

China wins because they can commit more troops then the Romans. Rome had to commit legions to guard the empire's borders against German, Berber and Parthian invasions. China's neighbors the Mongols and Jurchens were not that powerful yet so they could just leave a token force at the borders and send most of their armies to wherever they would be fighting the Romans.

Do France and Britain have comparable populations today?

>its another rome v china thread
I hate this board sometimes

> China wins because they can commit more troops then the Romans.

They can't though.

The highest estimate of the Roman army ever was the late era recruitment level of 590-620 000 men in total with the largest amount in a single battle being 300-400 000 at the battle of Philipi(both sides obviously being Roman).

> China's neighbors the Mongols and Jurchens were not that powerful yet so they could just leave a token force at the borders and send most of their armies to wherever they would be fighting the Romans.

You do realize that China had to regularly mobilize entire armies just to point steppe horde movements?

It was like living next to the Huns for a 1000 years.

> China had a much higher population

Arguable, both at their height(Han and imperial Rome) had comparable populations.

Depends on commanders ability and troop positioning.

If the Chinese crossbow manages to deal enough damage, then the Chinese win.

But if the Romans manage to get in close, it would be a series of 200+ J energy of javelin storms followed by a muh center grip scutum shield powah massacre.

Also, the Roman cavalry after the 1st century BC would be superior to what the Han Chinese had.

Yes, but population was much more important back then

only brainlets would choose rome

Yeah, those big Persians sure stomped those little Greeks, amirite?

Parthia/Persia wins, right?

>amateurs care about battles and weapons, professionals care about logistics

Look at the production figures for copper, iron and lead in Han China vs Rome during the same time period. No way could the Chinese keep up with Roman the Romans.

Yes and their military strength is pretty comparable

>Believing figures from two different methodologies

How would the Roman cavalry be superior to the Chinese?

The Chinese were trained to shoot from horseback.

> How would the Roman cavalry be superior to the Chinese?

Because the Chinese cavalry during antiquity sucked, it was like early to mid Republican Roman cavalry, only somewhat for engaging, usually just for skirmish and run down.

The Chinese uber tank cavalry that a lot of people know was developed later, after the 5th century.

While the Romans on the other hand had access to everything from the maniacal light shock cavalry from the north all the way to their own version of the Middle Eastern heavy cataphract.

> The Chinese were trained to shoot from horseback.

Only some, and they were bad at it.

There is a reason the Han Chinese put little stock in their cavalry and focused mostly on infantry crossbowmen.

Also, even horse archers suck without proper heavy cavalry support.

I was under the impression Han Cavalry was wank but then got significantly better under Wu, to the point they could whoop the Xiongnu?

Nevertheless, that is largely considered a period of decline, despite the elite Eastern Roman cavalry. They were also notoriously short on reserves, when depth was the traditional bulwark of the Roman state, the East switched to a high risk high reward strategy that proved unsustainable in the long run. China's wealth and proximity to nomads also provided potentially limitless supply of cavalry auxiliaries, whose loss would be largely inconsequential to the realm.

In the long term quantity does seem to outweigh quality in the cavalry department, there are exceptions, but when a light force can chevauchee in the enemy rear and paralyze supply lines, and do so cheaply, it has greater strategic value than a corps of heavy cavalry, which were potentially too valuable to use in the sort of aggressive maneuver operations that cavalry are best suited for.

>there is a reason why Hans put little stock in cavalry.

>forgetting the Tibetan civil war

> Nevertheless, that is largely considered a period of decline

Erm, the Roman army got stronger over several periods and was not really taken out until the 420s and onwards.

Hell, it was larger and stronger in the late 4th century AD than ever before.

> They were also notoriously short on reserves

Only in some short spans of years, it was not a linear decline.

> China's wealth and proximity to nomads also provided potentially limitless supply of cavalry auxiliaries, whose loss would be largely inconsequential to the realm.

The Imperial Romans fielded over 260 000 auxiliaries at one point.

> In the long term quantity does seem to outweigh quality in the cavalry department, there are exceptions, but when a light force can chevauchee in the enemy rear and paralyze supply lines, and do so cheaply, it has greater strategic value than a corps of heavy cavalry, which were potentially too valuable to use in the sort of aggressive maneuver operations that cavalry are best suited for.

The Romans, apart from a few imbeciles like Mark Anthony, did not have separate supply trains like other armies, but the supplies moved within the bulk of the army.

This is the reason why what you describe was not an option at the battle of Carrhae and was also not an option a decade later at the battles of Cilician Gates, Amanus Pass and the battle of Mount Gindarus, which led to a collapse of Parthian power for a few decades.

Each time an entirely cavalry army was forced to engage the Romans fully.


>forgetting the Tibetan civil war

What about it?

Tibetans were even far worse off with cavalry, fighting there and them means nothing.

>Han cavalry suck.
The crossbow was old hat by the time of the Han Dynasty.

The Han literally focused on Cavalry during the Han Xiongnu wars. It was far from "sucking."

In addition, Cataphract-style Cavalry in China first showed up under the Han, and became prevalent during the the Three Kingdoms/Jin Dynasty period.

> The crossbow was old hat by the time of the Han Dynasty.

No, it was literally the basis of their army.

The Donghai Military Storehouse of YongShi's 4th year Equipment Account Book" 《武库永始四年兵车器集簿》

states over 500 000 crossbows produced ffs

It was all they cared about.

> In addition, Cataphract-style Cavalry in China first showed up under the Han, and became prevalent during the the Three Kingdoms/Jin Dynasty period.

False.

The first evidence of horse barding at all comes from the late Three kingdoms.

We have little evidence of Chinese heavy cavalry until the 400s AD.

Ffs they still used chariots in 1st century BC, they were centuries behind the Middle East and the Mediterranean when it comes to melee cavalry.

Every legionary would carry up to 50-60 pounds plus equipment. At two pounds of bread per day as rations this evaluates to 25-30 days rations the army can carry on its backs. That's a good buffer, but keep in mind, if there are no supply trains, that means the army itself has to march to the nearest supply depot to resupply. Which kind of puts a damper on things. The Romans were able to carry enough supplies for emergency purposes, but the resources required for an entire campaign are a different matter.

Also you are wrong to fault Antony on this, the soldiers cannot live off the land in the dry plains, meaning the army is more dependent on what it can bring with it, which forces an increase in logistical capacity, but the capacity of the legionary, in pounds carried, cannot increase. Deductively speaking, increasing the number of soldiers cannot lighten the burden because they expand both sides of the equation, and every day you must also march towards water or carry that as well.

> Every legionary would carry up to 50-60 pounds plus equipment. At two pounds of bread per day as rations this evaluates to 25-30 days rations the army can carry on its backs. That's a good buffer, but keep in mind, if there are no supply trains, that means the army itself has to march to the nearest supply depot to resupply. Which kind of puts a damper on things. The Romans were able to carry enough supplies for emergency purposes, but the resources required for an entire campaign are a different matter.

The Chinese would have the same exact issue.

> Also you are wrong to fault Antony on this

No I am not, he literally separated his supply wagons from his offensive force because he got impatient and marched ahead in order to engage the enemy fortifications up north from the main route.

> the soldiers cannot live off the land in the dry plains

North Iran is not a dry plain.

no... No NOOOOOOOOO NOT AGAIN

>No I am not, he literally separated his supply wagons from his offensive force because he got impatient and marched ahead in order to engage the enemy fortifications up north from the main route.

You're saying the army must always proceed at the speed of supply wagons and never make speedy operations? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it's better to protect your supplies with the bulk of your army, but that describes an ideal situation which is not always practical in real life. Managing the supply chain of an ancient army is so fucking easy, even an idiot can do it, or the previous statement is completely retarded. I would put my money on the latter.

>I_do_not_understand_the_real_reason_chinks_used_chariots.jpg
The Qin & Han period Chinese still used Chariots alongside cavalry despite the effectiveness of the latter because they used them as battle taxis. They were pretty unique in the late antiquity for utilizing what many thought as "useless." They have enough horses for both cavalry and chariotry. They just buy them off central asians if not breed it for themselves.

A Chinese chariot seats 3 people, driver included. Say you have 100. That's 200 infantrymen moving quite fast. That's 200 infantrymen you could put anywhere on a moments notice.

>Chinese cavalry sucks!
t. Roman who never had competent cavalry of any sort and always gets shitted on by large cavalry armies.

>muh han vs rome, muh japan thread

Chink shill thread, everyone

>the Mongols and Jurchens were not that powerful
They were more powerful than the barbarians Rome had to face.

China > Rome

>Rome vs china threads
>Splerging at Japan threads
>Make modern politic thread on 'muh chink century' on Veeky Forums
>''huu why don't you like (insert bulshit) ? you're just insecure''
Classic chinks

>Ffs they still used chariots in 1st century BC,
Han dynasty chariots were used as laagers against the Xiongnu and doubled as a mobile platform for various arcuballistas,crossbows and drums.

People always say companies shill their products on Veeky Forums, but this threads has gotten me to wonder whether countries shill their history as well

t. Giuseppe Hashimoto

Chinks do.

>romans lose everytime
>c-chink thread

Kek at the butthurt comments in that video

You don't have to be Japanese to hate chinks chang

Look up the fifty cent party.

that just sounds like a dragoon but less effective. interesting though.

>The Qin & Han period Chinese still used Chariots alongside cavalry despite the effectiveness of the latter because they used them as battle taxis
Why not give each 200 infantry man their own horse??? I mean that is what they did during the Xiongnu war.

> because they used them as battle taxis

You do realize that 1st century BC Celts/Britons did the same?

The argument still stands, chariots were obsolete for centuries by that point.

There is a reason basically all armies with access to proper infantry and cavalry doctrines abandoned them.

> A Chinese chariot seats 3 people, driver included. Say you have 100. That's 200 infantrymen moving quite fast. That's 200 infantrymen you could put anywhere on a moments notice.

Not really, chariots are infamous for being horrid at anything apart from clean flat terrain, which most of Euroasia isn't.

Ordering your infantry to just march faster or even run will do a similar job, like the Romans did at the battle of Tigranocerta when they outflanked a cavalry army with an infantry troop by just having the infantry sprint in formation and encircle the enemy at lightning speed.

> t. Roman who never had competent cavalry of any sort and always gets shitted on by large cavalry armies.

You do realize that Roman cavalry sucked only during the Punic Wars and before, after which they had really good cavalry?

Roman auxiliaries included some of the best cavalry on Earth at the time, from Armenians to Parthians and even Sarmatians and Scythians.

And yet Romans never figured out how to have a proper fully cavalry dominated force until Gallienus in the third century AD, while the Han were using flying cavalry columns against the Xiongnu in the second century BC.

> And yet Romans never figured out how to have a proper fully cavalry dominated force

No, they just focused on infantry because focusing on cavalry while being a Mediterranean Empire who experiences sieges about 4343 times more often that open battles makes far more sense.

Rome going full cav would be nonsensical.

> while the Han were using flying cavalry columns against the Xiongnu in the second century BC.

The Han were using light skirmishing cavalry, more often armed with javelin than bow along with literally tens of thousands of infantry.

Infantry was the core of the Han army, stop trying to be retarded.