Ignoring the logistical issues of reaching each other, who would in a military confrontation between the Roman Empire and Ancient China in 117 AD?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ignoring the logistical issues of reaching each other, who would in a military confrontation between the Roman Empire and Ancient China in 117 AD?
I would in a military confrontation between the Roman Empire and Ancient China, shit would be kino.
Your b***h ass wouldn't even make it a quarterway through the Han's Army before getting BTFO.
quality < quantity
Which is which? Both spammed footsoldiers.
Han dynasty had one year of service for all men, in contrast, the Roman army was voluntary and rewarded.
So, it is not hard to imagine seeing Han army being huge, but full of men who don't want to be there, and do the bare minimum. In contrast, Roman army was full of ambitious men who choose to be there.
Wrong pic homie?
Not him, but most definetly the right pic.
no that's the traditional outfit of the prostitutes that hanged around in Han barracks
Wrong, that's the traditional outfit your mother wears in my bedroom.
The Han later adopted it out of respect of her skill.
Logistics is the most decisive factor in war, frick off gsgtrooner.
>chinkshill thread
Its pointless to debate this but han china would mog the roman empire and it would not even be close
The common interaction both had were the huns, han china had its way with the huns so much so that it set off a chain reaction where barbarian tribes were pushed westwards due to some huns escaping
The huns ended up pushing the germanic tribes from their central asian homeland into the heart of europe as the germanic tribes were desperately escaping for survival against the huns
The huns when they reached europe extorted the roman empire of 25% to 50% of its wealth in gold, slaves and other goods as the roman empire wanted no part of the huns in actual combat
A few other data points:
1) han china had anywhere between 2x to 3x the population of the roman empire
2) the average han china soldier was around 5'7" compared to the average roman soldier that was around 5'3", the huns and germans were around 5'7" also
3) The han china employed total warfare strategy with infantry, cavalry, and siege/biological warfare, the roman empire were primarily infantry
4) The han empire had a substantial portion of their population as mongol type peoples that actually wanted to be woke/civilized like the han chinese, the roman empire had its core of roman soldiers but the majority were conquered chit-tier slave/tribes
5) The hardness of iron in han china is estimated at 3x+ harder than the roman soft barely iron weapons
But the above is meaningless because the roman empire had a far greater impact on human history than han china
>Han china had anywhere between 2x to 3x the population of the roman empire
Bullshit, the Romans had a slightly higher total population, although Han army sizes were larger due to them recruiting more of their population.
>The han china employed total warfare strategy
Not true in 117 AD. The Qin were the ones doing total warfare. The Han didn't engage in total warfare because they fought non-state enemies and focused on fending off and punishing raids.
The metallurgy thing might be true
Xiongnu and Huns aren't the same people. There is no evidence.
Han China didn't have 2 or 3 times the population of the Roman Empire, they were roughly equal, with about a quarter of the world's population each. Like 60 millions in the Romen empire and 60 in China, when the world's population was only 300 millions. And it was probably close to 100 million in the golden age of Rome (Trajan, Hadrian)
>The huns when they reached europe extorted the roman empire of 25% to 50% of its wealth in gold
They asked for tribute of 400 pounds of Gold, which is about the yearly revenue of a Senatorial family
> The huns when they reached europe extorted the roman empire of 25% to 50% of its wealth in gold
more like 3-4 % lol, and for a few decades, not 600 years like they did China
> han china had anywhere between 2x to 3x the population of the roman empire
lol no
> the average han china soldier was around 5'7"
lol no
> the average roman soldier that was around 5'3"
lol no
> The han china employed total warfare strategy with infantry, cavalry, and siege/biological warfare
Han largely employed levied peasant conscripts
> the roman empire were primarily infantry
so were the Han
> The han empire had a substantial portion of their population as mongol type peoples that actually wanted to be woke/civilized like the han chinese, the roman empire had its core of roman soldiers but the majority were conquered chit-tier slave/tribes
lol no
> The hardness of iron in han china is estimated at 3x+ harder than the roman soft barely iron weapons
lol no, rather 30-50%, still significant, however, you forget that the average Chinese armor covered a lot less than the Roman hamata did.
As for weapon hardness, it is largely irrelevant, and has been erroneously argued as of prime importance ever since that blast furnace book by Dr. Williams.
In reality, we have a swarm of sources throughout history arguing against too hard weaponry, and praising softness in steel just as much as hardness, and focusing on mettalurgy and craftwork by itself as prime notion of quality, because hard blades tended to snap, whereas softer edges being dulled after what many cuts was not seen at all as an issue, and them being softer meant them being more reliable.
Read the works of Al-Biruni for example, he praises the swords of the Rus for being softer yet of higher quality than damascus steel, which is much harder, but far more prone to failure because of it.
> you forget that the average Chinese armor covered a lot less than the Roman hamata did.
not only that, but a good portion of the Chinese army would be entirely unarmored, and the armored portion often entirely unshielded, but slightly armored but armed with two handed polearms
Their army was absolutely not armed for direct engagement with heavy infantry like the Romans had, after the Roman advance under crossbow hail, they would get in javelin range, and absolutely slaughter the entire front line with a pilum storm.
That is not counting Vegetius and his 60 ballistas and onagers per legion argument
You are fools thinking the two based civilizations would war against each other, they would rather join to exterminate the societal Black persony of the steppe
Why do people come on IQfy and post a load of bullshit?
>the average han china soldier was around 5'7" compared to the average roman soldier that was around 5'3"
Italian sisters...
>quality<quantit-ACK!
>Chyna vs Rome thread
Ok chang.
>ok ch-ACK!
so aryan...
One is white one is chinkoid bug. So I'd go with Rome.
But in large scale warfare east always wins against west unless the west has a sizeable numerical advantage, its essentially a law of human nature as predictable as the sun rises and sets everyday
>Our superior race will bring us victor .. ACK!
>posting the edit
Cope
Every germanic related people have trace mongol paternal dna
Same with persians they all have some mongol paternal dna
Every israelite has trace Black person dna
>italians
>white
Whiter than you
>t. wop
The Persians.
Romans would all unite for the singular purpose of plundering all of that wealth without mercy or without stop or without any restraint.
The romans cucked themselves and were extorted with threat of immediate physical reprisal by the huns, most historians estimate 25% to 50% of roman gold, slaves and wealth were tributed to the huns for centuries which combined with the germanic tribes trying to escape the huns directly contributed to the fall of the roman empire, this is why 100% of germanic people have trace mongolic paternal genetics
The huns were completely mogged by the han chinese and the reason why they were in europe is because they got near genocided by the han chinese
All this said, nobody gives a chit about what happened thousands of years ago and the roman legacy is far greater than any chinese dynasty
Huns # Xionnu, you historylet
Idiot, the entire eurasian steppe was literally tribes of barbarians, there were only a few organized polities that had any semblance to a nation even back then, these people from manchuria to ukraine literally saw themselves as kinsmen and shared a common genetic origin intermixed by genetics from those they mogged as they expanded in every direction
>In the 18th century, French scholar Joseph de Guignes became the first to propose a link between the Huns and the Xiongnu people, who lived in northern China from the 3rd century BC to the late 1st century AD.[2] Since Guignes' time, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted to investigating such a connection. The issue remains controversial. Their relationships with other entities such as the Iranian Huns and the Huna people of South Asia have also been disputed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
We are not talking about the late western empire, we are talking about the empire at its height. The Huns are not relevant they never faced the marian legion. They faced a defensive oriented occupation force, that was robbed of its greatest strength, the ability or Rome to replace losses with equal quality troops like they did in the Punic wars. Justinians plague was one of the three major reasons the western empire fell.
> The huns were completely mogged by the han chinese an
They were also completely mogged by Germanic scum lol;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nedao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassianae
as well as Romans when they got their shit in order.
It means nothing
this
Hudud a l-‘A la m tells us that the Bus of Arthä make “blades and swords, which can be bent double, but as soon as the hand is removed, they resume their original shape"
The quenching and blast furnace of the Chinese was an advantage primarily for armor hardness, for weaponry, it means very little, since the Romans themselves, as well as pre-blast furnace Europeans, quenched their spearheads and arrowtips and made just as hard tips for penetration as any blast furnace could produce, the main difference being the whole head was not smelted steel, but produced with a softer core.
To even argue for Roman weaponry to be iron is moronic chinkcope
Not to mention Roman shields being of higher quality in the 2nd century AD, so much so that the Parthians and Sassanids are rarely even mentioned trying archery as main focus becomes heavy cavalry, which the Chinese absolutely lacked prior to the 4th-5th century AD
>Han lacked heavy cavalry
Their heavy cavalry was so good they btfo'd a steppeBlack person confederation the size of the Huns in 89 AD
>Their heavy cavalry was so good they btfo'd a steppeBlack person confederation the size of the Huns in 89 AD
lol no dude
their massive infantry 50 times more numerous than the Xions and crossbow spam btfo'd the Xions.
The Han did not have anything resembling heavy cavalry til at least the late 200s, for proper heavy cav, we are talking late 300s, 400s and later, and not in any significant number til the 500s
The exact reason the Han won against the Huns is the reason they would have lost against the Romans, their army was great against forces of mass light cavalry.
Put an army of 75 000 legionaries that don't skirmish and Black person around but smash frontally into your army and that is an entirely different story.
>Smash frontally into your army 50 meters away and showering you with crossbow fire
>Smash frontally into your army 50 meters away and showering you with crossbow fire
You do realize all those crossbowmen would not be able to shoot frontally because their own infantrymen would be deployed in front of them to fight the Roman infantry?
Real life isn't total war
The reason those crossbowmen worked so well irl was because the steppe Black folk skirmished around constantly, making the crossbowmen able to out shoot them.
In a direct clash with an infantry army they would be slaughtered.
> Not necessarily, a signficiant number of Qin terracotta warriors exhibit armored pauldrons
Because those are the Emperors guards..
Qin terracotas are nearly all tombed warriors,
Han terracotas on the other hand are largely ordinary army troops depicted, which is why very few of them are so well armored.
> As for the Eastern Han, there are several murals that depict infantry in this manner as well.
...which is why the dude said "most" and not all....
Heavy armor for infantry might not be the best choice for fighting in the desert frontiers of Han territory. The logistical strain for the Romans would be immense, especially since they're used to fighting with a really well-developed web of infrastructure reliant on the Mediterranean.
I personally forsee Romans being able to win the pitched battles they get into, but the Han being able to pick and choose their battles more due to more logistical flexibility. This is the same civilization that sent an army through completely unexplored terrain to fight a nearly unknown civilization over horses and won the second time they tried.
> Heavy armor for infantry might not be the best choice for fighting in the desert frontiers of Han territory.
1 most of the terracotta are from inland Han territory
2 the heaviest armored troops came from the Middle East at the time
3 the Han did armor those that they could, so I guess they wanted to, but couldn't
> The logistical strain for the Romans would be immense, especially since they're used to fighting with a really well-developed web of infrastructure reliant on the Mediterranean.
I personally forsee Romans being able to win the pitched battles they get into, but the Han being able to pick and choose their battles more due to more logistical flexibility.
This entire thread is literally titled ignoring the logistical issues...
also, why do you assume the Romans marching there and not the Han marching to the Romans?
The thread handwaves the issues of one empire reaching the borders of the other. Once they're in, it's fair game.
And I'm assuming it's the Romans marching in and not Han invading the Romans because it's pretty obvious the Romans would win that one so the reverse is the only situation worth talking about other than border skirmishes.
>Because those are the Emperors guards..
There should be a ceremonial nature they lack helmets
The funeary pits were constructed as an accurate representation of Qin armories.
>Han terracotas on the other hand are largely ordinary army troops depicted, which is why very few of them are so well armored.
Unarmored and lightly armored troops do appear quite often in later sites but so do lamellar armor with spaulders.
>...which is why the dude said "most" and not all....
So what are these sources? The Yangjiawan site only covers the incipient Western Han dynasty.
that image depicts the very high end garrison troops, the vast majority of the fielded army would be far less equipped
of those that were armored, most depictions of those soldiers who are armored are depicted with torso lamellar corsellets and that's it, none of the pauldrons and other stuff you nearly always see depicted with Hanoboosts
for comparison, average Roman soldier 2nd century AD would be this or the same but hamata instead of segmentata
> most depictions of those soldiers who are armored are depicted with torso lamellar corsellets.
Not necessarily, a signficiant number of Qin terracotta warriors exhibit armored pauldrons. Western Han terracottas from the Shanwangcun and Shizishan inherit the lamellar "hood" and lamellar armor from the Qin Shihuang burial pits.
As for the Eastern Han, there are several murals that depict infantry in this manner as well.
Heavy Cavalry in China just started showing up by the late Han Period. Well after they have defeated the Xiongnu.
Previously they only had horse archers and medium cavalry which are just dudes in light armor on horseback. Following the wars with the Xiongnu they adopted heavy cavalry in full.
Wait. You're telling me warring states cavalry did not look like this?
they did look like that, but only a small minority of them
The vast majority were still pic related
Qin era horsemen looked like this, at least according to the Terra Cotta Army.
Its a really bad manga, both settingswise and historywise. Lord fricking knows why though, we have very detailed primary sources on what the Warring States Armies looked like.
These dudes were also found but they weren't near any horses. Their armor is better though and they wore black robes which meant they might be Qin Imperial Guard (Black is Qin's Royal Color as the Qin's associates with the Water element.)
> Qin era horsemen looked like this
and again, those were the very elite, the vast majority of cavalry in China prior to the 4th century AD were unarmored or lightly armored
interesting how neither the Romans not the Chinese gave two fricks about leg protection
There's a hierarchy of places on the body that are likely to be hit by weapons and legs are at the bottom of the list.
> Bus of Arthä
*Rus of Artha
>ignoring an extremely relevant factor that decides the entire conclusion of the very premise we're considering
frick off
You can't ignore the logistical issues relating to distance. Warfare depends greatly upon who is on the offensive and who is on the defensive. Is it Rome invading China or vice versa? Where are they encountering each other? What time period is it? Who are the generals on both side?
See the issue with creating some imaginary war?
The Chinese would field larger armies but mostly fought eachother. Their major experience of non-Han combat were steppe shit and the occasional SEA monkey war. The Romans had a more diverse experience in different combat styles and more flexible.
In what period? Who leads both sides?
Who is invading who? And even knowing all of these informations it would still be a pointless debate.
A better question is, who had the more efficient army at it's peak? I'd go with Romans honestly, the chinese army was huge, but hardly more than a bunch of paesant conscripts thrown together.
That said they did have pretty dope generals and units too.
>Ignoring logistics
You might as well start asking who had better magic.
Did Persia and China ever fight?
They were friends, the Chinese offered the Persian royalty a place in their court when they were escaping the Muslims.
Anxi (Parthia & Sassanid Persia as understood by China) were considered friendly realms.
No.
I kind of wish Rome was as friendly, imagine these 3 as supernations dominating their respective regions to this day.
Parthia/Persia was only friendly with China due to having mutual enemies in between.
You cannot ignore logistics in any war. Wars have been won and lost due to logistics. If you take logistics out of the warfare equation then you end up with nothing. It's like breaking a law of physics.
Chinks have always lost against Europeans, i don't see why this would be any different
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
You just proved his point, chinks lost the war. No amount of Chink propaganda cope movies can make up for that.
The historical fact is that the Norks were getting their shit kicked in until the Chinks intervened and brought it to a stalemate. What's more embarassing is that the Americans didn't manage to completely stomp the shit in of an unmechanized, barely industrialized army fresh out of it's own bloody civil war.
>What's more embarassing is that the Americans didn't manage to completely stomp the shit in of an unmechanized, barely industrialized army fresh out of it's own bloody civil war.
well, not really, since the war was literally in China's backyard against a NATO expeditionary force sent across an entire frickign Ocean.
What is embarrasing is China not being able to conquer Southern Korea
That's assuming China had equal capability to NATO countries in the 50's. If China was a peer to NATO countries then, it wouldn't be embarrassing for America and friends. But they lost against an enemy with no tanks, logistics dependent on horses, and barely any arty. It's like the British at the height of their empire losing to a bunch of tribals with sharp sticks.
> It's like the British at the height of their empire losing to a bunch of tribals with sharp sticks.
lol what cope
China was armed as frick by the 1950s, both from the massive dumps of weapons they captured through the late 40s from the civil war as well as continued Soviet supplies of the same til the sino soviet split ofc
Also, over a million men lol
here is a joke that explains the situation logically and in proper orientation
>a roman army and a chinese army meet in a central asia steppe
>a china general say "look at here, i bring you unending horde of quickly breeding peasants! dont test me!"
>a roman general say "barbarian you are, my maniple can distinguish easily"
>they agree to fight in the transoxiana come morning and go to sleep.
>the following day, the battle is over
>a spahbad rides to ctesiphon that night with an eagle standard in his left hand and a moonrunes flag in his right
>the shahnshah was so pleased he personally married the spahbed to his own mother
the Han terracotas he posted are a different argument since some do have armor and others do not, meaning it was not an artistic choice, but just depiction as is
the lack of helmets I agree with
how did they frick up the lines so much lol?
that looks tribal tier, goofy as frick
pic related is 1300ish BC whiteoid tribesman helm
Myceneans weren't tribal dumbass
I don't think we Euro's have any right to criticize goofy helm design on anyone
Chinkshills need to be napalmed, should've finished what the japanese started.
>T. Romaboo seething that his empire that was destroyed by snowBlack folk can't conquer everything in it's path
>romaboo
Nah