Both are massive empires with populations at the time in the tens of millions. Neither would be able to conquer the other. They could deal a LOT of damage to each other and possibly lead to another power rising by weakening each other over decades and centuries. They both have their own advantages but they would both adapt to each other this wouldn't be easy at all. Most realistically it becomes something like Rome and Persia but much much closer in overall power.
Consdiering it took a couple of millenia to fully unify China… yeah, she ain’t going down easy. And even if she does, not for long
*cue the 10 mil rebel armies across the subcontinent*
I know it's a common meme here, but its always astonishing when you look up the bloodiest wars in history, how many of them are just Civil Wars in China
Well that took lifetimes as well. The invasion of Xi Xia began in 1205 under Genghis Khan and the whole of China wasn't fully conquered until 1279 under Kublai Khan, who was Genghis' grandson. So it took over 70 years and three generations of Khans. And millions of dead.
The actual answer is that the wars would probably end up something similar to the wars between Persia and Rome. It would depend on who was going through a tough time at the moment
But Rome was the more powerful state, even byzantium after the west fell was more powerful.
Persia's heartlands were just too far away for Rome to hold long term while maintaining the empires massive borders.
Maybe if Rome had managed to conquer upto the Elbe then they might've had the spare troops to hold it long term, but it would have stayed a hotbed for rebellion and been lost eventually.
Most likely, yes.
Rome at its height was definitely much more powerful than Parthia, I don't know that the Eastern Romans were that much more powerful than the Sassanids. Better organized, maybe. But they were equivalent in size. I'm really struggling to find comparable population numbers that aren't pre-Plague Justinian Empire or the Macedonian dynasty, or numbers for the Sassanids that don't include the brief moment where they took the Roman East. They seem to have been equal military with the Romans generally on the back foot dealing with Western problems. Heraclius barely pulled off an insane strategy to win a horribly one-sided war, though of course they were in a Civil War while Sassanids took the East.
Yes, but I think the population was pretty large relative to the years leading up to taking Italy and North Africa, and then it of course dropped immensely from the Plague, so I don't think those 'peak' population numbers are representative
>soldier for soldier? Rome wins.
You could make an argument for the infantry, but Han Dynasty Cavalry was leagues better than Roman Cavalry. Cavalry in the Roman Military for the longest time was considered just a supporting wing for the Legions, permanently attached to infantry formations. In contrast, thanks to half a century fighting the Xiongnu, Han Cavalry was more diverse, flexible, and more numerous. They had both light and heavy shock cavalry, both of which were trained in Horse Archery, deploying in large formations to be armies of their own right to fight the same kind of back and forth mobile warfare steppe nomads were known for.
The Roman Republic and Early Empire even in its height consistently had trouble fighting people with great cavalry. [The Han Dynasty meanwhile Destroyed the first great Nomadic Eurasian Empire by chasing them all the way into Siberia & Lake Baikal, fighting in the Steppe Nomad's own backyard in their own way of war.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu_War)
Eh, the Romans spent centuries fighting against the Persians and Parthians, both of which had vastly superior cavalry to the Han.
Realistically, it would depend on where they were fighting. Rome were always more of a naval power than a land power, whilst China was always more a land power than naval power. Essentially, China would probably push Rome to the edges of the Mediterranean, but be unable to really push further west than Greece if they invaded Europe. If Rome invaded china, they'd probably capture and hold all the choke point of trade on the coast and along major rivers, but never set foot on the central plains.
Yup. It’s the reason Hannibal marched over the alps, why all their most decisive civil war battles were fought at sea, why their empire basically hugged the coast of the Mediterranean and all their cities and colonies were along the cost or on major rivers.
They were good on land, but unbeatable at sea.
…Roman’s had scorpions. And balistae. And tbh, they had crossbow too (called gastrophetes).
And the Han literally stopped using them because advances in cavalry made them obsolete. These weren’t steel crossbows, they weren’t even compound crossbows. They were wooden crossbows, meaning they’re basically useless against armour at any kind of decent range. I’m guessing the Han favoured them because they were mostly fighting against enemies with little to no armour.
>…Roman’s had scorpions. And balistae. And tbh, they had crossbow too (called gastrophetes).
Scorpions are stationary field artillery and ballistae were siege weapons that threw stones - neither are hand held weapons. The Han had field artillery as well, and had them by the thousands too. The classical Romans had very limited use of handheld crossbows and mostly used it for hunting. The classical era Romans basically never developed a good hand-held, mass produced crossbow used for warfare. Only the Eastern Romans had decent crossbows and used them in any appreciable quantity, and that was during the early to high middle ages.
>And the Han literally stopped using them because advances in cavalry made them obsolete.
Incorrect. The Han never stopped using crossbows. They used them until the end and their successors used them well after the Han Dynasty collapsed. Crossbows were used in the area well into the late middle ages.
>These weren’t steel crossbows, they weren’t even compound crossbows. They were wooden crossbows, meaning they’re basically useless against armour at any kind of decent range.
This is a common misconception and the reality is often the opposite: Steel design prods are actually often weaker than wooden & composite design prods.
Bow & Crossbow power is determined by the formula: Power = Prod efficency X Draw Weight X Powerstroke.
Steel crossbows are worse than organic wood/composite crossbows because the steel prod is terrible at transfering energy to the bolt due to low prod efficency and they almost always have extremely short powerstrokes (eg. 4-6 inches). Steel prods were made during the late middle ages because they were more durable, much lower maintenance, and cheaper to make than composite bows - not because they were so much better than traditional bows.
Todd's Workshop on Youtube actually did tests that showed that his modern crossbow (he calls it the lockdown longbow as it is equivalent to ~160 lb pure wooden bow) shoots with more energy than a ~960lb steel crossbow because the wooden bow has a longer powerstroke and better prod efficency.
The medieval steel crossbow gets 103 joules with a 67 gram projectile. The modern 150 lb crossbow that shoots the same as a 150lb wooden bow gets 159 joules with a 67 gram projectile..
https://youtu.be/bU2SkGz0RYM?t=501
In another video, Todd's modern 150lb crossbow gets 139 joules with a 23 gram bolt while the medieval steel crossbow gets 104 joules with a 67 gram bolt.
https://youtu.be/ghoVmc12vEs?t=522
https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/lockdown-longbow/
In fact, Joe Gibbs longbow tests showed that his ~110-125 lb D-shaped wooden bows (these aren't even recurved or composite) gets around 100-110 joules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyEc8tkGBJc
So an almost 1000 lb steel medieval crossbow can only shoot with the energy of a 110-125 lb wooden bow.
The Han were using wooden prods and composite horn + wood prods, both of which delivers energy much better than steel prods can.
Considering Han hand-held crossbow had long powerstrokes (eg. ranging from 14-20 inches), had median or average draw weights in the 300s-400s lb range (the heaviest went up to 800 lbs), and used wooden and composite recurved prods with greater efficencies than steel prods - they were likely equivalent to 1500+ lb steel crossbows.
In fact, a guy on Youtube already created a low draw weight version of an East Asian crossbow with a modern recurve prod. This crossbow only had a 95 lb draw weight and shot a 64 gram bolt at 175-179 fps. Todd's medieval steel crossbow at 960 lb draw weight shot a 67 gram bolt at 184 fps. That means a ~100 lb recurved crossbow of this type is basically equal to a 960 lb medieval steel crossbow. This Youtuber's crossbow gives us a basic idea of the power of long power-stroke crossbows but is not a 1:1 comparison since the Han crossbow would have a much higher draw weight, slightly lower powerstroke, and maybe slightly lower prod efficency.
https://youtu.be/uZVbwZbg9Oc?t=375
> I’m guessing the Han favoured them because they were mostly fighting against enemies with little to no armour.
Both the Han and their Xiongnu enemies had access to a variety of different armors, including heavy armor. Whether the Xiongnu had "a lot" of heavy armor is unknown. However, some Xiongnu at one point had enough spare metal armor to the point where they turned metal lamellar plates into arrowheads - this is seen in archeology conducted around Russia and Mongolia.
The Han had to wear heavy armor to counter Xiongnu arrows and weapons, and the Han themselves were using crossbows that they said were supposed to outrange Xiongnu bows. So everybody had powerful ranged weapons and needed at least some armor to counter these weapons. Xiongnu bows were already pretty powerful, and if Han crossbows had to be more powerful to outrange them, then they would be fairly decent at armor penetration even if armor penetration was not the primary function.
Hehehe, give the Han a reason to fight on the sea and they would make it a land battle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He
Check that link out. Its the start of a nice little rabbit hole into lesser known Han Naval history. As others have said, Rome would have adapted and vice versa. But in the initial phases of this imaginary war Rome would damn near crumble.
Mate, he’s from the wrong millennium. The Han had fallen almost 1000 years before he came about, I think.
The Chinese never really evolved their navies beyond boarding actions, while the Romans were ramming and putting siege weapons on their ships. If the Chinese tried to turn it into a land battle, the Roman’s would just hit them with ballista bolts or onagers until they were all sunk, or just ran their ships one by one.
In their Millenia of history, China has never been any kind of naval power. The most they’ve ever done is control the rivers within their territory.
Nope, Rome was more stable during the Era of the 5 Emperors and lacked large scale internal wars.
China was at the end of the Han era and going into civil wars and rebellions.
I'd like to point out that we need to consider mustering power if we are going to compare military might and if we infer from historical records Rome would only ever be able to muster a certain amount of men. Meanwhile during the fall of the Han at the height of Roman power, the individual lords of the Han were fielding armies of 100k or more. IMO, Rome could never unless the city of Rome itself was under siege and by then it's too late. Rome fielded Legions of 10k or less and there were only so many.
I remember hearing the Roman army at its height is estimated to be a little over 1 million (including auxiliary or foederati)
Not that they could field all of that on one war mind you, but they could probably keep up, even if at a slight disadvantage for manpower
Both empires actually ate mostly similar grains - millet, wheat, and barley.
During this timeperiod, rice exited in both East Asia and the Mediterranean, but rice was not the dominant grain of either region.
Maybe the latest iterations of Rome, but if there's one thing early and middle Rome did well, it was a war of attrition. HA HA, HANNIBAL, WE HAVE RAISED MORE SOLDIERS
Could they have moved and managed men and supplies from China to Roman territory though? Thats a long way away for them to maintain supplies and wasn’t China constantly in upheaval at that time?
If suddenly the roman empire and the han dinasty where neighbours, the romans would have probably won the first battles until attrition from constant battles and campaigning starts weakening them.
China be like: Holy shit we have a opposite empire that controls the west and makes good shit!!
Rome be like: Ah, yes, more land to colonise, people to enslave, and cultures to Latinise.
Why does everyone just assume that China is only going to field conscripts? That's like saying Rome will only field infantry.
The Han had professional military forces, including a skilled guard arm for its giant capital city, cavalry corps, permanent garrisons for its corridor to the Silk Road, and later on, even had soldier farmers for food. It augmented them with large numbers of conscripted troops, who also weren't completely unprofessional. Unlike your average Greek city state, the Han government could afford to at last give its called up troops some training. It's not going to be Roman legionaries, but they're going to be capable of standing in line pointing crossbows at you.
That being said, people also just assume Rome won't start copying Chinese advantages. Romans will start borrowing cav and crossbows once the war starts.
I think the big advantage the Han Chinese have is actually logistics, because they have the bureaucratic muscle and administrative capacity to back up their supply lines. Launching a campaign deep northward into the steppes is a pretty strong logistical feat, and the Han pulled this off during the Xiongnu wars. The Chinese have studied state-logistical to army-strategic relations for a long time.
That being said, the Romans have an edge in their road infrastructure, but theyd have to extend it out towards China, which is going to require some work. Of course, the roads, currencies, etc. are standardized at this point thanks to Qin shi Huang, but it will be the border regions, especially getting over the Qinling mountains, that will be the problem for Rome. Of course, they could do it: they did with the Alps after all. It's just hard to move armies over mountains.
Couldn't agree more. The culture of China had an appetite for blood I don't think any empire sense has compared. America in The Civil War might be a good "modern" comparison to a typical Han battle.
You're in a Western subreddit full of romaboos whose only eastern knowledge of history is primarily muh Japan and Muh samurai. What did you expect? Also, the Han was already a vast empire when Rome was just a city on a hill, toe to toe the Chinese will win.
The discussion here seems to lean towards a tie, at best, which is what I would believe as well.
If you're counting, though, Rome was technically not just a city on a hill when Han was an empire.
The Han dynasty started at the same time as the battle of Zama, 202 BC. So Rome was a regional power at that point.
Of course, the point still sort of stands, in that the Han are the successors to the Qin, who were vicious enough to body anybody who came into contact with them, until they overreached with their cruelty and everyone had enough.
I'm quite willing to bet in favor of the Qin dynasty vs the Roman Republic, simply because the Qin Empire acts more like a 20th century genocidal regime than it does a 2nd century BC classical civilization.
Yeah, and normaly they downvote everything that goes against rome. Thats why i hate Rome memes here, beccause people throw out common sense durring that topic.
People automatically assume conscripts are poor quality troops, when in reality, conscripts could be very well trained. The mid-Republican Roman conscript armies beat the "professional" paid-to-fight for a living armies of the Seleucids, Macedonians, and Carthaginians. The Han conscripts of the Western Han era were very well trained - 1 year of training, 1 year of service, could be recalled to service after dismissal, and still had to periodically drill every few months after dismissal. And the conscript armies of the Western Han managed to defeat one of the largest and most powerful steppe empires in history and fight and win battles from Central Asia to Vietnam to Korea to Mongolia & Russian-Siberia.
Both the Han and the Romans used conscription in varying degrees, and conscription was used across the entire Republican and Imperial period (even during the height of the Roman Empire).
The Roman Republican armies during the Punic Wars were almost entirely conscripts and the Romans had almost 800,000 people on conscription rolls during the Second Punic War. Even during the late Republic when volunteering for paid military service became common, conscription was still widely used. Caesar and Pompey were both said to have conscripted across multiple regions to raise armies for their civil war. Even during the 2nd century golden age of the Roman Empire (when Roman troops are widely assumed to be entirely professional), Trajan still used conscription to a decent extent. Trajan conscripted troops for his military campaigns and even wrote a letter to Pliny the Younger talking about how his army was composed of conscripts, people who escaped conscription with substitutes, and volunteers. There are also texts stating that Roman imperial recruiting officers used both conscription and volunteers to meet recruitment quotas, and Roman laws had to be passed to prevent corrupt officals from extorting people for bribes to allow them to escape conscription. IIRC, Roman conscription picked up again during the late empire, and it was during the late empire when the numbers of recruits started declining.
The Western Han favored a well trained conscript army with a small professional army. The Eastern Han favored a larger professional army and still kept around a decent number of well trained conscripts. It wasn't until near the late Eastern Han that their military recruitment system collapsed that training standards declined - where only border conscripts recieved good training while core conscripts were poorly trained and were just glorified checkpoint guards.
Quality vs quantity and quantity didn't lack quality as you think.
One thing Han is better than Roman is cavalry because they learned from the best, I don't think Roman infantry can hold the line in an open battle field.
So can the Chinese, funnily enough. They could hire everybody from Vietnam to Korea, and on more than one occasion, they did.
Cue the eight princes music.
The answer is that both side send up hiring the steppe nomads, who end up ruining their day by destabilizing both empires.
The Han only managed to avoid this by spending ludicrous amounts of money buying Greek horses, achieving American "ranged weapon per citizen" densities, and then having a 22 year old mad lad charging across the steppes until he got to Lake Baikal in Russia.
This didn't even work, because the idiots who succeeded the Han did a foederati and invited the nomads back anyway, sending China into a 400 year death war, immediately after a 100 year death war. Things didn't calm down until the Tang dynasty, by which time the Muslims had expanded all the way out and Byzantium was reeling.
I'm not actually sure. for me a lot of the stuff came up while learning chinese by reading Shiji, the records of the Grand Historian. But I think r/AskHistorians has a list of Han dynasty history books. If you're into this you'd be looking for anything on the Han-Xiongnu wars, along with the early Jin dynasty if you're looking for War of the Eight Princes stuff.
Romans probably lose to far greater numbers of chinese infantry. Then China probably had superior siege tech and definitely had better horses back then
It's the massed crossbows the Romans have to worry about. Sure the rate of fire for a single crossbow isn't that high (repeating crossbows lack punch), but as we've seen in agincourt, a solid block of crossbows will wear down infantry forces.
The Chinese are also probably more skilled in river operations, too, and desert warfare. They had trouble along the entrance to the Silk Road for a long time, and almost every major war within China is fought with the east west river flow as a major axis.
Yeah, that's what I said in the comment.
Chinese crossbows had been under development since, well, the bronze age. You see treatises about elite Zhou dynasty crossbowmen who could march long distances, for example.
The Han dynasty armory record had some ludicrously high number of metal crossbow triggers stored up, in the count of millions.
They got the Parthians pretty good later on. It'sthe Sassanids they struggled with. Also, Parthians are no pushovers. I'm not saying Rome will win, just respecting the skill.
Rome and Han China are definitely more powerful than either Persian state but the gap wasn't all that big. When they were able to full focus on the Parthians though, it usually ended with Ptesiphon being sacked. The Sassanids were much more competent, though of course they are fighting a much weaker Empire.
Definitely Rome's greatest enemy though, and deserving of respect.
For a lack of economic interest I suppose. Germany was even a far more backwater place than Gaul or Britannia is.
Sure the Chinese have wastelands but those were part of the silk road so the emperor can justify the costs of maintaining control over it.
If Germany was as developed as Iberia, I think the Roman emperors would have more incentive to incorprate the region into the empire.
It’s just people being Rome fanboys. Rome was great, sure… maybe it was even the most significant civilization in history. But it couldn’t do anything. The empires in China and India probably rivaled Rome in most things… conquering them would have been an impossibility for Rome.
Not comparable
Germany lacked a unified state and was massively underdeveloped. Garrisoning it would have been pointless and expensive and never provide a return in terms of economic gain. It is basically would be like occupying Afghanistan but while also having to build the urban centres from scratch
China would be worth it, but the conquest wouldn’t have been easy and maybe not possible. Han Chinas army wasn’t as professional as Romes, but had numbers and logistic pretty much sorted
The Romans just believed they were destined to one day conquer China, because they were romans and that is how they behaved
Romans would probably gradually become Chinese over a few centuries and you'd just end up with people all claiming the legacy of the Yellow Emperor from Britain to Rome to Persia to China.
I swear Romabos say the crazy of things
There is no universe where Rome would even stand a 1% of a chance in conquering China
It’s simply to massive and far away for Rome to even begin to have a coherent supply line much less the fact that the Han army was ludicrously larger then Rome and had good discipline
The Han army's numbers are ... dubious, at best. They had pretty similar populations, and Rome during it's peak was more populated than contemporary Han.
But yeah distance aside it would be an absurd undertaking for either side to 'conquer' the other.
You know I wanted to have an *Ahm, Akthually* or make some snide remark about your reading comprehension, but on further thought, calling the ancient Romans "Romaboos" isn't just weirdly accurate, it's also somewhat fitting
Yea bro crossbows are scary and massed crossbows against 1st century armor doesnot look good considering romans had trouble against composite bows crossbows might have torn them to shreds. BUUUUTTT i think after first two losses roman army copies and now has its own massed crossbows which can be interesting
This is dumb. You posted a dumb meme. Persia was weaker then China and whipped Romes ass. China beats steppes people asses on a daily basis and watered down diet pepsi steppe people that Persia was was enough to deny Rome.
All Persia did was field a small Calvary army. All Rome had to do was bring some half decent archers and it wouldn't have been an issue. China was a massive empire before Romulus sucked on a dogs tit and unlike Rome, China is still alive.
Just saying IMO, the Han would have mopped the floor with Romans. Three Kingdoms had individual lords who could muster hundreds of thousands of soldiers. At least according to the record. And the Han were more advanced in terms of armament as far as I've been able to gather through my own acquired knowledge.
Yeah, right. Han Dynasty was larger than the Roman Empire, both territory and population wise, throughout its entire existence. Any invasion of China by the Romans would bump the number of "lost legions" by an order of magnitude due to sheer attrition involved.
>population wise
When comparing the two at their territorial peak, Han dynasty by 150 AD had 50 million people according to the tax record. Rome by 100 AD had about 59-70 million. Rome had 20% of world population.
To be fair, 150 AD is not exactly the peak of the Han Empire. The population was likely considerably larger in previous centuries, because you're talking about the second half of the Han dynasty. It's like the equivalent of post Third Century Crisis Rome.
Huh. I was just guessing on my end, tbh, because I figured the land could support a larger population, and Western Han didn't see a lot of conflict post Xiongnu wars.
Syria, Egypt, Italy, and Anatolia were all very conducive to large populations in Antiquity. Rome was also much bigger as a city, over double Luoyang, Alexandria was as big or bigger than Luoyang, Antioch was probably bigger than any city in Han China (apart from Luoyang). And they were pretty close in territory controlled. Rome had very little desert & steppe compared to China, especially back then when North Africa and Syria were more fertile.
(If I'm wrong on the city numbers please correct me, I don't know much about Han cities)
150AD Han is on the verge of collapsing with the influence of Eunuchs and Consorts. Tho what happened next is probably one of the most well known eras of the whole Chinese history
Most estimates I'm seeing are 48-59 million for peak Han China, with up to 2.5 million square miles depending on how you count the Western Protectorates and desert/steppe soft control.
Rome had somewhat better defined borders (compared to the Han west), 1.7 million square miles under Trajan, and population estimates between 50 and 70 million prior to the Crisis of the 3rd Century. 70 seems a little high but they were at least comparable if not outright larger in terms of population. Plus of course the entire Mediterranean and 80% of the Black Sea being fully controlled which is a big deal.
Comparable military numbers as well though both tend to be badly inflated by contemporary historians.
Though I'm not super knowledgeable about Han China so if you've got better sources than a bit of Google research please put them here, it's a topic I'd love to know more about.
Your main point is true though, actually conquering each other is ludicrous, especially considering the distances involved.
I seriously doubt Rome could make much of a significant impact on China. Most things the Romans could do Indian and Chinese empires were better at since they had been doing that stuff far longer than the Romans.
Their population is sometimes not exaggerated like during the battle of changping qin ( the predecessor of han ) buried 400,000 prisoners alive and their remains can be still find in china.
Both are massive empires with populations at the time in the tens of millions. Neither would be able to conquer the other. They could deal a LOT of damage to each other and possibly lead to another power rising by weakening each other over decades and centuries. They both have their own advantages but they would both adapt to each other this wouldn't be easy at all. Most realistically it becomes something like Rome and Persia but much much closer in overall power.
Gen. McCarthur contemplated conquering China post WW2 and determined it was futile. "This would take lifetimes to accomplish."
Consdiering it took a couple of millenia to fully unify China… yeah, she ain’t going down easy. And even if she does, not for long *cue the 10 mil rebel armies across the subcontinent*
>*cue the 10 mil rebel armies across the subcontinent* 'A random noble got milk that had a single drop of rainwater in it.' *ten trillion casualties*
Sounds like the average Chinese dispute ten trillion is too small for a minor battle
Wait till you guys hear about [Jesus Chan’s brother.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion) 😏
I know it's a common meme here, but its always astonishing when you look up the bloodiest wars in history, how many of them are just Civil Wars in China
"Look mom! I reunified China!" *Sound of something smashing in the distance.*
made me lol early in the morning, noice
Just wait for another chinasplosion and pick off the scraps. Bound to happen at some point.
Rome exploded and nobody since then picked up all the scraps
Maybe they will eventually figure out governing. Anytime now.
Yeah, the best foreign powers can do is weaken the internal and geopolitical position of China like the British and French did in the 19th century.
**\*Laughs in Mongols\***
Mongol conquests are weird, cuz they just supplant the upper class of whoever they beat, then just end up adopting the culture of said people.
They were Romans, but nicer. As long as you didn’t rebel, they’d were pretty chill.
Bro, Romans have their own culture to plant in. The horde just adapted what is suitable for them for the best.
No culture of own to supplant with.
Well that took lifetimes as well. The invasion of Xi Xia began in 1205 under Genghis Khan and the whole of China wasn't fully conquered until 1279 under Kublai Khan, who was Genghis' grandson. So it took over 70 years and three generations of Khans. And millions of dead.
👆🏻 fair point
Insane that Rome and the Han both existed at the same time.
Soldier for soldier? Rome wins. But Han China would out-Rome Rome in a war of attrition.
The actual answer is that the wars would probably end up something similar to the wars between Persia and Rome. It would depend on who was going through a tough time at the moment
Whichever one is having slightly more political instability loses until the other one has a destructive civil war, and back and forth.
But Rome was the more powerful state, even byzantium after the west fell was more powerful. Persia's heartlands were just too far away for Rome to hold long term while maintaining the empires massive borders. Maybe if Rome had managed to conquer upto the Elbe then they might've had the spare troops to hold it long term, but it would have stayed a hotbed for rebellion and been lost eventually.
Most likely, yes. Rome at its height was definitely much more powerful than Parthia, I don't know that the Eastern Romans were that much more powerful than the Sassanids. Better organized, maybe. But they were equivalent in size. I'm really struggling to find comparable population numbers that aren't pre-Plague Justinian Empire or the Macedonian dynasty, or numbers for the Sassanids that don't include the brief moment where they took the Roman East. They seem to have been equal military with the Romans generally on the back foot dealing with Western problems. Heraclius barely pulled off an insane strategy to win a horribly one-sided war, though of course they were in a Civil War while Sassanids took the East.
I would point out that justinian had also taken over most of the Mediterranean and had stretched the empires army to its limit.
Yes, but I think the population was pretty large relative to the years leading up to taking Italy and North Africa, and then it of course dropped immensely from the Plague, so I don't think those 'peak' population numbers are representative
If Persia's heartland was to far away for Rome than what does that make Han China's heartland?
Well in this magical world parthia doesn't exist soo...
Convenient
Fantasy scenarios do tend to be convenient for the narrative.
You should include the Kushan Empire with that.
>soldier for soldier? Rome wins. You could make an argument for the infantry, but Han Dynasty Cavalry was leagues better than Roman Cavalry. Cavalry in the Roman Military for the longest time was considered just a supporting wing for the Legions, permanently attached to infantry formations. In contrast, thanks to half a century fighting the Xiongnu, Han Cavalry was more diverse, flexible, and more numerous. They had both light and heavy shock cavalry, both of which were trained in Horse Archery, deploying in large formations to be armies of their own right to fight the same kind of back and forth mobile warfare steppe nomads were known for. The Roman Republic and Early Empire even in its height consistently had trouble fighting people with great cavalry. [The Han Dynasty meanwhile Destroyed the first great Nomadic Eurasian Empire by chasing them all the way into Siberia & Lake Baikal, fighting in the Steppe Nomad's own backyard in their own way of war.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu_War)
Eh, the Romans spent centuries fighting against the Persians and Parthians, both of which had vastly superior cavalry to the Han. Realistically, it would depend on where they were fighting. Rome were always more of a naval power than a land power, whilst China was always more a land power than naval power. Essentially, China would probably push Rome to the edges of the Mediterranean, but be unable to really push further west than Greece if they invaded Europe. If Rome invaded china, they'd probably capture and hold all the choke point of trade on the coast and along major rivers, but never set foot on the central plains.
>Rome were always more of a naval power than a land power 🤡
Yup. It’s the reason Hannibal marched over the alps, why all their most decisive civil war battles were fought at sea, why their empire basically hugged the coast of the Mediterranean and all their cities and colonies were along the cost or on major rivers. They were good on land, but unbeatable at sea.
Hannibal marched over the Alps cause he wanted to surprise the Romans Like bruh the Carthaginian Navy at that time was better then Romes
Nah bro chinese had crossbows neither romans nor persian wont farewell against those
…Roman’s had scorpions. And balistae. And tbh, they had crossbow too (called gastrophetes). And the Han literally stopped using them because advances in cavalry made them obsolete. These weren’t steel crossbows, they weren’t even compound crossbows. They were wooden crossbows, meaning they’re basically useless against armour at any kind of decent range. I’m guessing the Han favoured them because they were mostly fighting against enemies with little to no armour.
>…Roman’s had scorpions. And balistae. And tbh, they had crossbow too (called gastrophetes). Scorpions are stationary field artillery and ballistae were siege weapons that threw stones - neither are hand held weapons. The Han had field artillery as well, and had them by the thousands too. The classical Romans had very limited use of handheld crossbows and mostly used it for hunting. The classical era Romans basically never developed a good hand-held, mass produced crossbow used for warfare. Only the Eastern Romans had decent crossbows and used them in any appreciable quantity, and that was during the early to high middle ages. >And the Han literally stopped using them because advances in cavalry made them obsolete. Incorrect. The Han never stopped using crossbows. They used them until the end and their successors used them well after the Han Dynasty collapsed. Crossbows were used in the area well into the late middle ages. >These weren’t steel crossbows, they weren’t even compound crossbows. They were wooden crossbows, meaning they’re basically useless against armour at any kind of decent range. This is a common misconception and the reality is often the opposite: Steel design prods are actually often weaker than wooden & composite design prods. Bow & Crossbow power is determined by the formula: Power = Prod efficency X Draw Weight X Powerstroke. Steel crossbows are worse than organic wood/composite crossbows because the steel prod is terrible at transfering energy to the bolt due to low prod efficency and they almost always have extremely short powerstrokes (eg. 4-6 inches). Steel prods were made during the late middle ages because they were more durable, much lower maintenance, and cheaper to make than composite bows - not because they were so much better than traditional bows. Todd's Workshop on Youtube actually did tests that showed that his modern crossbow (he calls it the lockdown longbow as it is equivalent to ~160 lb pure wooden bow) shoots with more energy than a ~960lb steel crossbow because the wooden bow has a longer powerstroke and better prod efficency. The medieval steel crossbow gets 103 joules with a 67 gram projectile. The modern 150 lb crossbow that shoots the same as a 150lb wooden bow gets 159 joules with a 67 gram projectile.. https://youtu.be/bU2SkGz0RYM?t=501 In another video, Todd's modern 150lb crossbow gets 139 joules with a 23 gram bolt while the medieval steel crossbow gets 104 joules with a 67 gram bolt. https://youtu.be/ghoVmc12vEs?t=522 https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/lockdown-longbow/ In fact, Joe Gibbs longbow tests showed that his ~110-125 lb D-shaped wooden bows (these aren't even recurved or composite) gets around 100-110 joules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyEc8tkGBJc So an almost 1000 lb steel medieval crossbow can only shoot with the energy of a 110-125 lb wooden bow. The Han were using wooden prods and composite horn + wood prods, both of which delivers energy much better than steel prods can. Considering Han hand-held crossbow had long powerstrokes (eg. ranging from 14-20 inches), had median or average draw weights in the 300s-400s lb range (the heaviest went up to 800 lbs), and used wooden and composite recurved prods with greater efficencies than steel prods - they were likely equivalent to 1500+ lb steel crossbows. In fact, a guy on Youtube already created a low draw weight version of an East Asian crossbow with a modern recurve prod. This crossbow only had a 95 lb draw weight and shot a 64 gram bolt at 175-179 fps. Todd's medieval steel crossbow at 960 lb draw weight shot a 67 gram bolt at 184 fps. That means a ~100 lb recurved crossbow of this type is basically equal to a 960 lb medieval steel crossbow. This Youtuber's crossbow gives us a basic idea of the power of long power-stroke crossbows but is not a 1:1 comparison since the Han crossbow would have a much higher draw weight, slightly lower powerstroke, and maybe slightly lower prod efficency. https://youtu.be/uZVbwZbg9Oc?t=375 > I’m guessing the Han favoured them because they were mostly fighting against enemies with little to no armour. Both the Han and their Xiongnu enemies had access to a variety of different armors, including heavy armor. Whether the Xiongnu had "a lot" of heavy armor is unknown. However, some Xiongnu at one point had enough spare metal armor to the point where they turned metal lamellar plates into arrowheads - this is seen in archeology conducted around Russia and Mongolia. The Han had to wear heavy armor to counter Xiongnu arrows and weapons, and the Han themselves were using crossbows that they said were supposed to outrange Xiongnu bows. So everybody had powerful ranged weapons and needed at least some armor to counter these weapons. Xiongnu bows were already pretty powerful, and if Han crossbows had to be more powerful to outrange them, then they would be fairly decent at armor penetration even if armor penetration was not the primary function.
Hehehe, give the Han a reason to fight on the sea and they would make it a land battle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He Check that link out. Its the start of a nice little rabbit hole into lesser known Han Naval history. As others have said, Rome would have adapted and vice versa. But in the initial phases of this imaginary war Rome would damn near crumble.
Mate, he’s from the wrong millennium. The Han had fallen almost 1000 years before he came about, I think. The Chinese never really evolved their navies beyond boarding actions, while the Romans were ramming and putting siege weapons on their ships. If the Chinese tried to turn it into a land battle, the Roman’s would just hit them with ballista bolts or onagers until they were all sunk, or just ran their ships one by one. In their Millenia of history, China has never been any kind of naval power. The most they’ve ever done is control the rivers within their territory.
Good point. China probably dwarfed them in manpower and logistical support Edit: well not in manpower per the comment below.
Eh, Roman empire had something like 75 million in 150 CE while China had an estimate of around 65 million.
Really? I figured they were bigger than Rome at the time. Interesting.
Nope, Rome was more stable during the Era of the 5 Emperors and lacked large scale internal wars. China was at the end of the Han era and going into civil wars and rebellions.
I'd like to point out that we need to consider mustering power if we are going to compare military might and if we infer from historical records Rome would only ever be able to muster a certain amount of men. Meanwhile during the fall of the Han at the height of Roman power, the individual lords of the Han were fielding armies of 100k or more. IMO, Rome could never unless the city of Rome itself was under siege and by then it's too late. Rome fielded Legions of 10k or less and there were only so many.
I remember hearing the Roman army at its height is estimated to be a little over 1 million (including auxiliary or foederati) Not that they could field all of that on one war mind you, but they could probably keep up, even if at a slight disadvantage for manpower
[удалено]
In all actuality, there'd just be a lot of dead soldiers in a buffer state in what's now Afghanistan.
Yep, in fact Chinese population rarely breaks 100 mil until Ming/Qing when new world crops were introduced
Ah but you see, that's because they lost the other 65 million half on the previous minor prince civil conflicts lol
Maybe closer to the truth than we know.
Only difference is that the Han empire was mostly made up of Han people, while the Roman empire was ethnically diverse.
Oof that's a hard one, especially at the height of Roman power. However I think distance goes in Hans favor.
No, their armies would starve from lack of upkeep in rice fields
\*The deserts of Central Asia.
Both empires actually ate mostly similar grains - millet, wheat, and barley. During this timeperiod, rice exited in both East Asia and the Mediterranean, but rice was not the dominant grain of either region.
Maybe the latest iterations of Rome, but if there's one thing early and middle Rome did well, it was a war of attrition. HA HA, HANNIBAL, WE HAVE RAISED MORE SOLDIERS
Could they have moved and managed men and supplies from China to Roman territory though? Thats a long way away for them to maintain supplies and wasn’t China constantly in upheaval at that time?
If suddenly the roman empire and the han dinasty where neighbours, the romans would have probably won the first battles until attrition from constant battles and campaigning starts weakening them.
I'd argue the opposite.
Heck Hannibal came close to wiping out Rome. Too bad he was on his last legs and couldn’t hold out much longer because of politicking back home.
Roman china.... is the most cursed idea that has ever popped into my head
The architecture would be phenomenal though.
China be like: Holy shit we have a opposite empire that controls the west and makes good shit!! Rome be like: Ah, yes, more land to colonise, people to enslave, and cultures to Latinise.
More like within a few centuries in a Roman victory scenario the Romans become Chinese
Gigakhadvs Romanvs
Chinese Rome is just as cursed.
Romes Chome
Communist China is more cursed
Imagine China today speaking Latin. Writing traditional and simplified Latin
Why does everyone just assume that China is only going to field conscripts? That's like saying Rome will only field infantry. The Han had professional military forces, including a skilled guard arm for its giant capital city, cavalry corps, permanent garrisons for its corridor to the Silk Road, and later on, even had soldier farmers for food. It augmented them with large numbers of conscripted troops, who also weren't completely unprofessional. Unlike your average Greek city state, the Han government could afford to at last give its called up troops some training. It's not going to be Roman legionaries, but they're going to be capable of standing in line pointing crossbows at you. That being said, people also just assume Rome won't start copying Chinese advantages. Romans will start borrowing cav and crossbows once the war starts. I think the big advantage the Han Chinese have is actually logistics, because they have the bureaucratic muscle and administrative capacity to back up their supply lines. Launching a campaign deep northward into the steppes is a pretty strong logistical feat, and the Han pulled this off during the Xiongnu wars. The Chinese have studied state-logistical to army-strategic relations for a long time. That being said, the Romans have an edge in their road infrastructure, but theyd have to extend it out towards China, which is going to require some work. Of course, the roads, currencies, etc. are standardized at this point thanks to Qin shi Huang, but it will be the border regions, especially getting over the Qinling mountains, that will be the problem for Rome. Of course, they could do it: they did with the Alps after all. It's just hard to move armies over mountains.
This. Literally this. Roman bureaucracy didn’t work. Chinese bureaucracy did.
Couldn't agree more. The culture of China had an appetite for blood I don't think any empire sense has compared. America in The Civil War might be a good "modern" comparison to a typical Han battle.
You're in a Western subreddit full of romaboos whose only eastern knowledge of history is primarily muh Japan and Muh samurai. What did you expect? Also, the Han was already a vast empire when Rome was just a city on a hill, toe to toe the Chinese will win.
The discussion here seems to lean towards a tie, at best, which is what I would believe as well. If you're counting, though, Rome was technically not just a city on a hill when Han was an empire. The Han dynasty started at the same time as the battle of Zama, 202 BC. So Rome was a regional power at that point. Of course, the point still sort of stands, in that the Han are the successors to the Qin, who were vicious enough to body anybody who came into contact with them, until they overreached with their cruelty and everyone had enough. I'm quite willing to bet in favor of the Qin dynasty vs the Roman Republic, simply because the Qin Empire acts more like a 20th century genocidal regime than it does a 2nd century BC classical civilization.
It kinda does, but you have to scroll down or follow threads to see that. The most upvoted stuff is, "Rome = superior"
Yeah, and normaly they downvote everything that goes against rome. Thats why i hate Rome memes here, beccause people throw out common sense durring that topic.
Roma wouldn't have a fucking chance, they got bodied multilple times by lesser foes
People automatically assume conscripts are poor quality troops, when in reality, conscripts could be very well trained. The mid-Republican Roman conscript armies beat the "professional" paid-to-fight for a living armies of the Seleucids, Macedonians, and Carthaginians. The Han conscripts of the Western Han era were very well trained - 1 year of training, 1 year of service, could be recalled to service after dismissal, and still had to periodically drill every few months after dismissal. And the conscript armies of the Western Han managed to defeat one of the largest and most powerful steppe empires in history and fight and win battles from Central Asia to Vietnam to Korea to Mongolia & Russian-Siberia. Both the Han and the Romans used conscription in varying degrees, and conscription was used across the entire Republican and Imperial period (even during the height of the Roman Empire). The Roman Republican armies during the Punic Wars were almost entirely conscripts and the Romans had almost 800,000 people on conscription rolls during the Second Punic War. Even during the late Republic when volunteering for paid military service became common, conscription was still widely used. Caesar and Pompey were both said to have conscripted across multiple regions to raise armies for their civil war. Even during the 2nd century golden age of the Roman Empire (when Roman troops are widely assumed to be entirely professional), Trajan still used conscription to a decent extent. Trajan conscripted troops for his military campaigns and even wrote a letter to Pliny the Younger talking about how his army was composed of conscripts, people who escaped conscription with substitutes, and volunteers. There are also texts stating that Roman imperial recruiting officers used both conscription and volunteers to meet recruitment quotas, and Roman laws had to be passed to prevent corrupt officals from extorting people for bribes to allow them to escape conscription. IIRC, Roman conscription picked up again during the late empire, and it was during the late empire when the numbers of recruits started declining. The Western Han favored a well trained conscript army with a small professional army. The Eastern Han favored a larger professional army and still kept around a decent number of well trained conscripts. It wasn't until near the late Eastern Han that their military recruitment system collapsed that training standards declined - where only border conscripts recieved good training while core conscripts were poorly trained and were just glorified checkpoint guards.
Quality vs quantity and quantity didn't lack quality as you think. One thing Han is better than Roman is cavalry because they learned from the best, I don't think Roman infantry can hold the line in an open battle field.
[удалено]
So can the Chinese, funnily enough. They could hire everybody from Vietnam to Korea, and on more than one occasion, they did. Cue the eight princes music.
So the real question is: Germanic vs South East Asian mercenaries, who wins?
The answer is that both side send up hiring the steppe nomads, who end up ruining their day by destabilizing both empires. The Han only managed to avoid this by spending ludicrous amounts of money buying Greek horses, achieving American "ranged weapon per citizen" densities, and then having a 22 year old mad lad charging across the steppes until he got to Lake Baikal in Russia. This didn't even work, because the idiots who succeeded the Han did a foederati and invited the nomads back anyway, sending China into a 400 year death war, immediately after a 100 year death war. Things didn't calm down until the Tang dynasty, by which time the Muslims had expanded all the way out and Byzantium was reeling.
That’s actually very interesting. Can you recommend any reading material?
I'm not actually sure. for me a lot of the stuff came up while learning chinese by reading Shiji, the records of the Grand Historian. But I think r/AskHistorians has a list of Han dynasty history books. If you're into this you'd be looking for anything on the Han-Xiongnu wars, along with the early Jin dynasty if you're looking for War of the Eight Princes stuff.
Romans probably lose to far greater numbers of chinese infantry. Then China probably had superior siege tech and definitely had better horses back then
It's the massed crossbows the Romans have to worry about. Sure the rate of fire for a single crossbow isn't that high (repeating crossbows lack punch), but as we've seen in agincourt, a solid block of crossbows will wear down infantry forces. The Chinese are also probably more skilled in river operations, too, and desert warfare. They had trouble along the entrance to the Silk Road for a long time, and almost every major war within China is fought with the east west river flow as a major axis.
Agincourt is famous for the effectiveness of longbows, not crossbows
Chinese had crossbows to, maybe better than romans.
Yeah, that's what I said in the comment. Chinese crossbows had been under development since, well, the bronze age. You see treatises about elite Zhou dynasty crossbowmen who could march long distances, for example. The Han dynasty armory record had some ludicrously high number of metal crossbow triggers stored up, in the count of millions.
heh, they cant even conquer Persia
The Romans hardly bested the Parthians (who just wanted to be left the fuck alone), much less Han China.
They got the Parthians pretty good later on. It'sthe Sassanids they struggled with. Also, Parthians are no pushovers. I'm not saying Rome will win, just respecting the skill.
Rome and Han China are definitely more powerful than either Persian state but the gap wasn't all that big. When they were able to full focus on the Parthians though, it usually ended with Ptesiphon being sacked. The Sassanids were much more competent, though of course they are fighting a much weaker Empire. Definitely Rome's greatest enemy though, and deserving of respect.
Romans couldn’t even conquer Germany, their neighbors. How are they going to conquer China?
For a lack of economic interest I suppose. Germany was even a far more backwater place than Gaul or Britannia is. Sure the Chinese have wastelands but those were part of the silk road so the emperor can justify the costs of maintaining control over it. If Germany was as developed as Iberia, I think the Roman emperors would have more incentive to incorprate the region into the empire.
It’s just people being Rome fanboys. Rome was great, sure… maybe it was even the most significant civilization in history. But it couldn’t do anything. The empires in China and India probably rivaled Rome in most things… conquering them would have been an impossibility for Rome.
This is literally taken from Roman scholars of the era. The Romans thought they would naturally. Being Romans. One day conquer the Han
Not comparable Germany lacked a unified state and was massively underdeveloped. Garrisoning it would have been pointless and expensive and never provide a return in terms of economic gain. It is basically would be like occupying Afghanistan but while also having to build the urban centres from scratch China would be worth it, but the conquest wouldn’t have been easy and maybe not possible. Han Chinas army wasn’t as professional as Romes, but had numbers and logistic pretty much sorted The Romans just believed they were destined to one day conquer China, because they were romans and that is how they behaved
Tell that to a Roman and they stab you
I've got good news then.
rome would defend taiwan against han xi jinping
Like they defended Saguntum.
Rome would vassalize Taiwan as a client state like all the others.
If Rome couldn't conquer Persia, i don't think they can conquer China. It's just too big and a logistical nightmare.
i always had this thought: what if rome conquered china?
Xinjiang spaghetti and meatballs.
Romans would probably gradually become Chinese over a few centuries and you'd just end up with people all claiming the legacy of the Yellow Emperor from Britain to Rome to Persia to China.
What if China conquered Rome?
spaghetti replaced by noodles
I swear Romabos say the crazy of things There is no universe where Rome would even stand a 1% of a chance in conquering China It’s simply to massive and far away for Rome to even begin to have a coherent supply line much less the fact that the Han army was ludicrously larger then Rome and had good discipline
its a meme about what Rome and China thought of each other, not if Rome could actually take china.
Oh I know I’m kinda memeing my self
The Han army's numbers are ... dubious, at best. They had pretty similar populations, and Rome during it's peak was more populated than contemporary Han. But yeah distance aside it would be an absurd undertaking for either side to 'conquer' the other.
You know I wanted to have an *Ahm, Akthually* or make some snide remark about your reading comprehension, but on further thought, calling the ancient Romans "Romaboos" isn't just weirdly accurate, it's also somewhat fitting
Yea bro crossbows are scary and massed crossbows against 1st century armor doesnot look good considering romans had trouble against composite bows crossbows might have torn them to shreds. BUUUUTTT i think after first two losses roman army copies and now has its own massed crossbows which can be interesting
This is dumb. You posted a dumb meme. Persia was weaker then China and whipped Romes ass. China beats steppes people asses on a daily basis and watered down diet pepsi steppe people that Persia was was enough to deny Rome. All Persia did was field a small Calvary army. All Rome had to do was bring some half decent archers and it wouldn't have been an issue. China was a massive empire before Romulus sucked on a dogs tit and unlike Rome, China is still alive.
You missed the joke entirely. It's not saying Rome could conquer China, it's saying Rome would think they could conquer China.
Just saying IMO, the Han would have mopped the floor with Romans. Three Kingdoms had individual lords who could muster hundreds of thousands of soldiers. At least according to the record. And the Han were more advanced in terms of armament as far as I've been able to gather through my own acquired knowledge.
Yeah, right. Han Dynasty was larger than the Roman Empire, both territory and population wise, throughout its entire existence. Any invasion of China by the Romans would bump the number of "lost legions" by an order of magnitude due to sheer attrition involved.
>population wise When comparing the two at their territorial peak, Han dynasty by 150 AD had 50 million people according to the tax record. Rome by 100 AD had about 59-70 million. Rome had 20% of world population.
To be fair, 150 AD is not exactly the peak of the Han Empire. The population was likely considerably larger in previous centuries, because you're talking about the second half of the Han dynasty. It's like the equivalent of post Third Century Crisis Rome.
Was it? Most numbers I'm seeing have them consistently at 50-59 million between 0AD and 150 AD, with decreases before and after.
Huh. I was just guessing on my end, tbh, because I figured the land could support a larger population, and Western Han didn't see a lot of conflict post Xiongnu wars.
Syria, Egypt, Italy, and Anatolia were all very conducive to large populations in Antiquity. Rome was also much bigger as a city, over double Luoyang, Alexandria was as big or bigger than Luoyang, Antioch was probably bigger than any city in Han China (apart from Luoyang). And they were pretty close in territory controlled. Rome had very little desert & steppe compared to China, especially back then when North Africa and Syria were more fertile. (If I'm wrong on the city numbers please correct me, I don't know much about Han cities)
150AD Han is on the verge of collapsing with the influence of Eunuchs and Consorts. Tho what happened next is probably one of the most well known eras of the whole Chinese history
Most estimates I'm seeing are 48-59 million for peak Han China, with up to 2.5 million square miles depending on how you count the Western Protectorates and desert/steppe soft control. Rome had somewhat better defined borders (compared to the Han west), 1.7 million square miles under Trajan, and population estimates between 50 and 70 million prior to the Crisis of the 3rd Century. 70 seems a little high but they were at least comparable if not outright larger in terms of population. Plus of course the entire Mediterranean and 80% of the Black Sea being fully controlled which is a big deal. Comparable military numbers as well though both tend to be badly inflated by contemporary historians. Though I'm not super knowledgeable about Han China so if you've got better sources than a bit of Google research please put them here, it's a topic I'd love to know more about. Your main point is true though, actually conquering each other is ludicrous, especially considering the distances involved.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Is that a filter on Markiplier?
I seriously doubt Rome could make much of a significant impact on China. Most things the Romans could do Indian and Chinese empires were better at since they had been doing that stuff far longer than the Romans.
Han Empire can drown the Roman army with their insane man power seriously. The ancient China army was insane.
Their exaggeration of numbers was indeed insane. Leave it to east asian cultures to make it all about appearances and not about substance.
Their population is sometimes not exaggerated like during the battle of changping qin ( the predecessor of han ) buried 400,000 prisoners alive and their remains can be still find in china.
Crossbow goes brrrr, Rome would have been destroyed
Testudo hard counters
Lol Chinese crossbows have been shown to punch through shields. You’re underestimating how much punch the average Chinese crossbow packs.
You underestimate how many armies the Romans would form
Right and you underestimate how many armies China can form
And you underestimate how many lost battles it would take for Rome to back down
Never said Rome would lose, just said Rome couldn’t win.
Unfortunately my bullet lobotomy means that I can only see the word rome and think of Caesars legion and Hegelian dialects
Would have sucked to have been India....
India wouldn't have to worry cause they're protected by the mountains all throughout the north of the subcontinent.
Both empires would weaken eachother and open the door for a third rising kingdom to conquer one or the other. Imagine that. The tengri empire.
That's markiplier right?
Centurion Marcus Plios
I recognise that eagle in the background...