A simple question, if Rome was to expand to the boarders of China, and the two waged a war (assume the Marian reforms did not take place in Rome), who would have won, and why?
~John
Printable View
A simple question, if Rome was to expand to the boarders of China, and the two waged a war (assume the Marian reforms did not take place in Rome), who would have won, and why?
~John
you mean rome???Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
Let's see:
Rome's Hastati-Principes-Triarii legion didn't work particularly well against Hannibal. It didn't work well against the Gallic tribes. It failed against the phalanx at Cynoscephalae. It was terrible in terms of manpower conservation.
But it was flexible, mobile and good if the fighting came to swords. The pilum was very good at pinning enemy shields together and rendering them unusable.
If Rome had expanded to China, the manpower would've been enormous, and the weight, ferocity and skill of the Romans would've had the Han begging the Romans for mercy.
Which, of course, the Romans would show none. *insert evil laugh here*
I must say that the Pre-Marian Roman legions served their purpose or fulfilled their role at the battle of Cynoscephalae [197 BCE] against King Philip V of Antigonid Macedonia. The Roman legions before the reforms of Gaius Marius in 107 BCE formed in a quincunx or a checker board formation and were divided into four lines: the Velites as javelinists, the Hastati, the Principes and the Triarii that imitated the style of the Grecian hoplitai as they formed in dense lines with protruding spears. Also, each consular army before the Marian reforms consisted of two Roman legions and two auxiliary legions. The Roman legions were flexible and mobile compared to the methodical, rigid and inflexible Macedonian phalanxes which depended on flat terrain and the protection of the flanks with either the hypaspistai who were able to fight as phalangists or as swift infantry units or heavy cavalry in order to maintain cohesion. The Macedonian and Hellenistic era phalanxes were susceptible to assaults on their rear and flanks. If the phalangists marched over rough terrain, the phalanx formation as a whole lost its cohesion and its marching order was disrupted in which narrow gaps would emerge from the divided, disorganized and slow moving ranks of the phalanx. The Grecian phalanx functioned through the othismos or the frontal push which consisted of the hoplitai [Hoplites] pushing the opposing forces in a shoving match with the weight of their shields and the press of bodies while a well formed Hellenistic era phalanx worked alongside a line or a screen of peltasts, the hypaspistai and heavy cavalry and was intended to contain enemy forces before the arrival of the kataphractoi or the cataphracts and other cavalry forces who would then envelop the enemy force fixing the enemy between the bristling pikes of the phalangists and the swords and lances of the kataphractoi.
At the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BCE and later at the battle of Pydna in 168 BCE, the role of the Roman legions was to absorb the massive frontal impact of the Macedonian phalanxes which proved impenetrable in the front due to the protruding sarrisae of the Macedonians. However, due to the rough terrain, the iron discipline and the superior flexibility and mobility of the Roman legions, the Romans held their ground and allowed the Macedonians despite their furious assault to push forward in a disorganized mass in their feverish excitement during the point of the greatest confusion of the battle. The Roman legions were slowly being pushed back due to the determination and the bristling sarissae or pikes of the Macedonians. However, the Romans were absorbing the vicious frontal assault maintained by the Macedonians in which due to the cacophony or the great clamor of noise during battle, the great shrieks and groans of dying men and the resultant confusion, a considerable gap appeared between the two main formations of the Macedonian army. The Roman legions slowly gave ground to the Macedonian phalanxes so as to allow the gap in the Macedonian forces to widen which was then exploited by the Romans. A thunderous charge by the Roman equites drove a wedge between the two main Macedonian forces and split the Macedonian forces into two smaller and inferior forces. The Roman cavalry then encircled or surrounded the hard pressed and disconcerted Macedonian phalangists while the Roman infantrymen renewed their defense and managed to viciously attack the flanks of the Macedonian formations leading to the destruction of the phalanx as a formation or unit and to the slaughter of the individual Macedonian soldier.
I must say that due to its greater flexibility and mobility and its relations with a small but determined cavalry arm and an auxiliary branch, the Roman legion was superior to the Macedonian phalanx or to the phalanxes of the Hellenistic Period. Eventually, Rome's superior military skill, advanced technology and political acumen led to its subjugation of the other Mediterranean kingdoms and civilizations and rendered Rome the sole power of the Mediterranean basin and the sovereign mistress of the civilized world.
rome vs. hanQuote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
That was a response to BrotherhoodUK's comment on the battle of Cynoscephalae.
o ok, well whats your opinion of rome vs. chinaQuote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
I think I'm beginning to detect a western bias. ;)
Ever since I first played the video game, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," I have been interested in that era of Chinese history. I think you guys are underestimating their technology, their leadership, and (most importantly) their sheer numbers. The question seems to ask if Rome could have conquered China. I don't think China could have marched westward and taken Southern Europe. But, I definitely think they would hold their ground and successfully repel a Roman invasion. China definitely deserves more than my single vote. :devil:
PS: I would love to see a few more Eastern leaders in your "Best commander of ______ era?" threads. :cool:
I frickin love that game If I could Rep u I would :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rota
I'd have to say that the ground would need to be considered. Where do the empires meet? For example, if Rome advanced through India... well, the mountains of the Hindu Kush are well named. And, given Rome's traditional logistic difficulties and the problems with horse soldiers in southern Asia, Han would have had a definite advantage in mobility and cavalry. The legions were excellently equipped but the scuta has a limited effectiveness.
The question would likely be decided on which empire would use the local resources. I'd actually have to say that the locals would rise up and form empires of their own before either of those two could do anything effective in India - and look what happened.
Perhaps instead the Romans would have been wise enough to set the locals at one another's throats and leave them there as a buffer state... thereby ensuring their own demise once the survivors of generations of internecine conflict banded together against a common oppressor.
As to the Han... presuming equivalent technology is unwise; the Han had basic steel, while Rome had far better roads. Roads trump weapons most of the time, but... let's face it; the distances are simply too vast to permit the conflict. Rome would have split into two separate empires and the Han would have collapsed under internal rebellion long before the two met. (I feel safe in stating this because... well, that's what happened, innit?) Without the steam engine, neither society would have been able to extend that far.
So... my money's on the Han. Of the two cultures, the Eastern Han would have been the most likely to create the steam engine (or an equivalent) and use it for transportation, which would have granted them domination over all of southern and central Asia.