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.
You are both, incorrect, and correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK
A very good post, over-all.
However, Rome's Hastati-Principes-Triarii legion(s) worked very well against Hannibal. The difficulty they had was a lack of fighting experience. Once this was drilled into them, and a capable commander found, the success of the legion(s) was assured.
Again, it worked well against the Gaulic tribes. The problem, again, was untrained armies (for the most part).
You make valid points, however, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
Without the Marian reforms, the likelhood of a split between the empires is very, very, little.
I believe, in a conflict the Romans would have won.
The superior infantry would have made that part of the battle easier. The army being reinforced with numidian calvery, presumably Partian calvery too, and in addition, renegades and/ or turncoats from the Han army(s) itself, would have allowed Rome near equal footing on all fronts.
Not to mention the Roman artilery wings, which atleast rivaled what the Han could put-forth in battle.
~John
Rome's HPT legion failed at Lake Trasimene and (especially) Cannae. The HPT legion was also poor at conserving manpower. The only reason the Marian reforms actually took place was because Rome was experiencing a manpower shortage (which is crippling for an army) and they needed more men.
The manipular system didn't work against a prepared phalanx. At Cynoscephalae, the only reason that the Romans won was because the phalanxes advanced to quickly and got disorganized. A phalanx was one of the most successful pike formations in history, second only to the infantry square.
Rome's Imperial Legions weren't invincible (Teutobergerwald/Carrhae anyone?) but they were a damn sight better than the HPT or Chinese army at that time.
Of course, if Rome had all of Europe, half of Russia and India, and all of Asia Minor, the HPT's weakness in terms of conserving manpower would be irrelevant. But if Rome had the Imperial Legions, then the Han would be crushed.
seriously isnt this just another superman vs goku discussion in disguise?
Clearly Superman wins. Goku is just a cartoon character... Superman is REAL!!! :princess:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesterus
edit: I have proof he's real. He spoke at the commencement ceremony for my two undergraduate degrees, in 2003.
http://www.osu.edu/features/commence.../images/04.jpg
Han Dynasty FTW!!!!!!!
Considering Rome's manpower pool was far more vast during the time it levied soldiers, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say Marius initiated the professionalisation of the army to gain manpower? If you research the Punic Wars then you'll see how Rome was able to catapult itself back in to place despite massive losses of men and material at places like Lake Trasimene and Cannae for example. I'm not too familiar with his justification for reforming the army however, so feel free to prove me wrong.Quote:
Rome's HPT legion failed at Lake Trasimene and (especially) Cannae. The HPT legion was also poor at conserving manpower. The only reason the Marian reforms actually took place was because Rome was experiencing a manpower shortage (which is crippling for an army) and they needed more men.
Incorrect. The legions were actually extremely mobile units and could be rotated to the flanks of the phalanx so as compared to the Macedonian units who once fixed in to place couldn't move around.Quote:
The manipular system didn't work against a prepared phalanx. At Cynoscephalae, the only reason that the Romans won was because the phalanxes advanced to quickly and got disorganized. A phalanx was one of the most successful pike formations in history, second only to the infantry square.
It's easy to make that assumption when no information regarding the ancient Chinese military has been brought up in this thread (whereas we are all familiar with the Roman military).Quote:
Rome's Imperial Legions weren't invincible (Teutobergerwald/Carrhae anyone?) but they were a damn sight better than the HPT or Chinese army at that time.
Of course, if Rome had all of Europe, half of Russia and India, and all of Asia Minor, the HPT's weakness in terms of conserving manpower would be irrelevant. But if Rome had the Imperial Legions, then the Han would be crushed.
China would have had vast amounts of manpower, something that the Romans would have been lacking in if they came to the deserted regions between India and China.
China would have fought for their homeland, and Rome only to expand.
I think that China would have won in the end simply for those reasons...
Rome, Rome destroyed the egpytian empire the strongest war force in the world and you think china the weaklings will destroy rome the strongest civilization
Mmmm... Well, China has outlasted the Empire, though it was conquered a few times.
The difference is, China began to thrive under 'barbarian' rule, and Rome split up, fought itself, was reconquered, subsided into local obscurity, and eventually went Greek. Not that that's a bad thing, mind; it's just not Rome.
It would really depend in what era of the roman empire. Towards teh collapse of the ROman Empire The han dynasty would have won simply because of the enemy within for ROme. Political Corruption was at its hieght. Important positions in the military that were vital to have experienced people in it where bought at a larger extent then they ever were. Senate members were bought by foreign powers releasing government secrets like military position and numbers. Barbariac armies like the han dynasty would not have a chance against a unified Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
Hence the hypothetical situation being debated...
Rome would have won. The barbarian hoards would have been swept aside by the Roman armies (and barbarian turn-coats).
Experience fighting Persian Horse Archers would have provided insurmountable information to the Romans, so that, when the faced the Chinese horse-archers, they would have had no problem against them (reasonably speaking).
~John
I'm still holding to my steam railroads. :)
Both the Roman Empire and China at the time had populations of around 50,000,000 so you're merely succumbing to the stereotype when you say they would have had vast amounts of manpower. What's to say the Chinese would be able to march large contingents of forces across the Taklamakan Desert and the Hindu Kush anyway? Both sides would have to surpass immense natural obstacles and your arguments seem to be flimsy if anything; you pose subjective evidence rather than concrete data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurnis
After Alexander's Empire broke up the successor states hacked at each other and as a consequence exhausted each other. This is what made it so easy for the Romans to conquer the Eastern Mediterranean because it was basically a house of cards; i.e your "strongest war force" in the world argument doesn't hold weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussein
This is where the key problem lies. Internally. There are plenty of people here ranting that Rome would be superior and yet they're refusing to take in to account the highly instable government where the whole empire could immediately just collapse in to civil war. This is precisely why emperors would withdraw or stop conquests throughout the empire's history - because of internal strife and we don't seem to be appropriately factoring it in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
I'd prefer if you offered proof that the Han armies were 'barbaric' rather than sweeping generalisations. We all seem to enjoy discussing how mighty Rome's legions were and yet no information seems to be getting circulated about the Han dynasty's military. You shouldn't make a statement when you're ignorant on the other side of things, and that's precisely why I haven't voted on this poll because i'm uncertain of the Han dynasty's military capacity; I choose to argue in their favour however because of the sheer amount of fallacies rampant in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
Once more, proof that they are "barbaric hordes". As well as this, let's see the Romans cross the Hindu Kush and the Taklamakan Desert in any kind of reasonable state and then lets talk about what they were capable of.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams