1719 replies to this topic

[Book of Faith]

Hello,

Do you think the Romans would have had any success if they had attempted a full-scale invasion of Han China? On the vice versa, how would the Han army have faired if they had invaded the massive Roman Empire?

[snowybeagle]

Methinks it depends on many factors.

First of all, which specific period are we talking about. The might of both empires waxed and waned accordingly, and all that glitters is not gold.

Under Emperor WuDi, the Han armies defeated the Huns but the toils from years of military campaign took its toll on the Empire, reducing population (& tax base) as well as exhausting the reservers accumulated by previous monarchs.

Under Caesar Augustus, Rome was the new overlord of the Mediterranean & Central Europe, as well as North Africa and Middle East. However, her legions were always supplemented with foreign auxillary when away from Italy, mercenaries of varying reliability.

In AD2, a census put Chinese population at 57,671,400 while the estimated population of Roman Empire at the same time was only 7 million.

Second factor to consider was how did either armies cross the continent into each other's domain. Were they going through hostile territories filled with guerilla resistance or fellow collaborators intent on rich plunderings. Alexendar of Macedonia conquered a large territory in Europe-Asia but he never did really pacify them, the generals who succeeded him lost large portions, especially those lands further from Europe.

The third factor would be where would they meet?
Both the Roman Empire and the Han Empire consisted of vast domains on their borders which were only nominally under their rule. These points of entry would be easier to penetrate, but things would get different as they go deeper into the heartlands of the empires.

IMHO, neither the Hans nor the Romans would be successful in invading either territory.

If you were to create a neutral battleground between the empire, the success of each army would be open to debate.

[General_Zhaoyun]

It's impossible for Roman Empire to attack Han Empire. They were just too far and the roman navy was very weak and could not have sailed all the way from Europe to China to invade Han empire.

If Roman Empire were to attack Han Empire by land, they would first have to conquer the Persian Empire as well as the Parthygians as well as other central asian civilization before reaching China. And history has proven that this was a difficult feat. The Roman troops were based on infantry and were slow in mobilization, unlike the barbarian hun troops, which were horse-mounted cavalry, had a high mobility.

The same goes for Han empire, it could not possibly invade Roman Empire.

It's interesting to note that the Roman empire was called "Da Qin" (or Great Qin) in chinese history. There were traces of trading going on since Silk Road was opened up during the Han dynasty.

[Gweilo]

Of course you guys are correct in saying the logistics were just too impossible for the two empires to ever meet in a war, but I think the original question was more hypothetical.

So let's push reality aside and discuss what would have happened. I agree with the comment that both empires had periods of great military power, and other times when their military was waning.

Didn't the great martial emperor Wudi rule Han in the late 2nd century BC? Didn't his reign overlap the consecutive consulships of Gaius Marius, the great 'Third Founder of the Roman Empire' whose military brilliance revitalized the Roman legions?

Now that would have been an interesting clash of the titans - Wudi's Imperial armies vs. Marius's legions. :)

[thirdgumi]

It's a difficult question, it all depends on the terrain, the weather, the capability of the commanders.
Let's say that a Roman army marched east and a Han army marched west. Roman fighting through Parthians and the Han hacking through Xiong Nu, they both lost some troops but they finaly meet somewhere in today's Iran (just a presumption). The Han got probably cavalry based army while the Roman got heavy infantry based Legions. Well, both infantry and cavalry got their respective advantages and disavantages, now the deciding factors would be the commander's skills. The 35,000 Roman troops lost in Carrhae against 10,000 Parthian horsemen, because Crassus didn't know how to react to Parthian tactic. But Trajan on other hand was victorious in Parthia. So, it all depends on the commanders.

[Shadowfax]

Yeah, there are too much factors. Maybe we can talk about the strength of the armies at the highest point of the empires.

If the only factor is the armies' fighting skills and numbers, I think Han's army would knock the Roman's army out of the way in a short time. Because Han had a very large army, and they also made good use of cavalries, too. Romans mainly concentrated on heavy infantry. But that's just my opinion.

[Book of Faith]

The question was hypothetical(look under description). You're going to have to assume that they could reach each other, and that they were at their military heights.

[Sephodwyrm]

If the best Roman general was matched up to the best Chinese general of the Han dynasty, I would say that the Han army would win. The Roman army would be outmanoeuvered, trapped, be assailed day and night and suffer nervous break down. Night attack tactics were studied to the art of perfection in the Han army. In Zhou Ya Fu's campaign his army was assailed 24 hours a day and his army nearly suffered a nervous breakdown (the Night Fright took place once and Zhou Ya Fu, with his cool nature, stalled the massacre within his own camps). I believe that the Han would cream the Romans using the same tactic, especially when the Romans rarely encountered such tactics before. And night attacks were just one of the many tactics used.

[Shadowfax]

The Han fire a torrent of crossbow bolts, flying down on the Romans killing thousands of them and making them slow down.

Roman Army is not that weak. One of their most famous battle formations, the tortoise, can easily fend off this attack with very little casualties.

Ok lets say that the Han army is 300,000 and 30,000 cavalry and the Romans are 71,000 and 5,000 cavalry (the greatest roman army of Canne).

The Romans could master much more troops than that.

In the second punic war, Roman could gather an army of 340'000 infantry and 37'000 cavalry combined with its Italian allies.

By the time of Augustus, Roman had a standing army made up of 28 legions, which is about 168,000 men. All of them are professional soldiers. And this does not include mercenaries and reserves.

As the empire grew, and population increases, they probably can get more troops to fight.

[thirdgumi]

One of their most famous battle formations, the tortoise, can easily fend off this attack with very little casualties.

Yes, the "testudo". It's interesting that Plutarch and Cassius Dio mensioned some accounts during the battle of Carrhae (I took them from a site, just forgot the link :P ):

And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence."

                                                      - Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV

The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest.

                                            - Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL

We can see that for the romans, nor their shields nor armors could stop Pathian arrows. So, I doubt the effectiveness of the testudo, or at least I think testudo wouldn't handle easily against a shower of arrows.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Didn't the great martial emperor Wudi rule Han in the late 2nd century BC? Didn't his reign overlap the consecutive consulships of Gaius Marius, the great 'Third Founder of the Roman Empire' whose military brilliance revitalized the Roman legions?

Now that would have been an interesting clash of the titans - Wudi's Imperial armies vs. Marius's legions. 

Wu Di rule from 140b.c.-87b.c. During half this time it was wagin the war with Xiongnu, its absolutely ridiculous to think a Roman army or a Han army will march to each other at this point(or even at any point). The xiongnu Empire is the most powerful empire in the world at least until 133 b.c. ,it dominated the Central Asia portion of the silk route. And it always remained close behind the Han Empire in power even after wudi defeated them. Rome at this time is puny in comparison, it only had Italy, part of Spain, carthage, and the Greek states and Macedonia. Its army is also small compared to the other two. The Han dynasty only had just slowly began to wrest the Tarim from the Xiongnu begining in 108b.c. when it sugjugated the state of Lou Lan(present day lobnor) and defeated the kingdom of Gu Shi(present day Turfan and Urumchi). And the complete conquest of Tarim is not completed until 60b.c.. Any one with a decent understanding of the dificult military situation at this time would have easily dismissed the possibility of a Han invasion westwards even beyond Da Yuan(Ferghana), much less a Roman army coming from 3000 miles eastwards from Europe.

[Gweilo]

warhead, why don't you read a little more of the thread before you come down so heavy-handed on us? :angry: We KNOW it was logistically impossible for these two empires to have met in battle. We admitted that. We are talking 'what if' here.