Roman Empire vs Han China: Who would have won that "alternate history" war?

[@fludblud]

The main issue with Chinese historical sources isnt necessarily that they've been lost but that most havent been translated to English yet. Three Kingdoms stretched CA's research team to the limit during the game's development by the sheer volume of texts and sources combined with the difficulty of translating a language system that is completely alien to ours. Thankfully as more Chinese historical records get digitised and volunteers go through the painstaking effort of translating it all, more information should become available and we can revisit this scenario in the future.

[@Intranetusa]

The CA TW3K team should've gone with archaeology too. There are a ton of archaeological discoveries of weapons and armor of the Han Dynasty from recent years that the 3K team seems to have overlooked....such as 5 foot long steel two handed swords, long pikes and pike-lengthed halberds, some really cool looking armors (eg. armored sleeves, armored collars, etc), records of armory inventories, etc.

[@peiranzhang4283]

That would be nearly impossible the only somewhat reliable source is the records of the three kingdoms that is a biography for different historical peoples, and in those biographies, there are conflicts too. Like a person was executed in the biography of one person, but the person escaped prison in another person's biography. A person might have refused a position according to one biography, but accepted the position in another biography, and this was in the same source by the same person. Or you can look at peasant's tale, which would be that his great general killed half the enemy army himself, and everyone saw that with their own eyes. Or that his general was stabbed twenty times before dying or something of the sort.

[@qimingzhang3940]

@@peiranzhang4283 OK here are the sources you should use for the Three Kingdom period, 汉官仪，三国志，后汉书，续汉书， 通典，局延汉间，中国经济史考证，中国经济通史，东汉人口史，东汉的豪族，汉魏晋军府制度研究，魏晋南北朝禁卫武官制度研究，西汉和唐朝前期的政枢和政治制度，魏晋都督制的渊源和定形，I can go on and on and on.

[@peiranzhang4283]

@@qimingzhang3940 是，但是那些youtube上为了写一个视频会看那么多书吗？他们看的懂中文吗？

[@qimingzhang3940]

@@peiranzhang4283 Well, they shouldn't write about Han China and pretend like we don't know certain things. We do. Some of which are translated, some of which are not. But basic research will tell you there are conclusive evidence that WESTERN Han already have stirrups. They may not be the same stirrups people use in the 10th century, but they are stirrups. We have carvings of them from the Western Han. Plenty of our knowledge of Rome came from carving and statues, why do we accept Roman art and carvings but not Chinese art and carving? I also don't know how much mounted horse archers China has. I know plenty of mounted crossbowman, but only the You province was known for producing mounted archers, but these are the typical mounted archers who will charge after they shoot you. And he talks about how the Chinese cavalry don't have experience. What the fuck is he smoking.

[@sotirissotergi]

6:25 *ROMANS WERE USING BITCOINS?!*

[@chmeee9562]

I saw that too! Good thing the Romans got the Bitcoin action early, before its price spiked up :)

[@sufyansmits6410]

Yeah but i think they're a bit more salty then ours. ;)

[@TheRisingEagle93]

Yes. I made that happen with time travel.

[@Amarganeitor]

Of course the comment section would devolve into a Western Culture VS Eastern Culture.

[@ryandunham1047]

Old comment, but it is sad that it did so. (Also, I just gave you the magic number of likes)

[@TheRisingEagle93]

As of those exist on 2024

[@pac1fic055]

The legionnaire talking about the Gaul’s magic potion must have been based at Aquarium, Babaorum, Laudanum or Petibonum.

[@ericlanglois9194]

The idea that China was a more homogeneous empire during the Han dynasty is a misconception. One of the reasons China had so many civil wars was specifically because there were lots of different groups, like the Hmong (Miao), Yue (Cantonese), Wu (Shanghai), and others... A unified "Chinese" ethnic group didn't really start appearing until around the 13th century in the Yuan dynasty, and even then was mostly just the northern chinese. The differences between some of them is similar to the differences between Romans, Etruscans, Gauls, and Greeks. China, like Rome was an Empire afterall, they had a variety of peoples and customs throughout the empire.

[@peiranzhang4283]

Ah, Miao and Yue had like at most 2 million people in the Han era, and most of them are related through marriage to Han populations. Yue are not the Cantonese, Yue are Vietnamese, Cantonese isn't a ethnicity don't know where you heard that from, there is the Canton Han, which are the descendants of Han and Yue intermarrying. Wu isn't a ethnicity, it's again a variant of Han. It's like saying English men from London is a different ethnicity from English men from York. People back than would say: "My ancestors are from the Kingdom of Wu", which means they came from the region where the Wu kingdom used to reside. Shanghai didn't even exist back then, there was some fishing villages in the area of Nanjing, the coast is occupied by the last enclaves of the Yue(huts on beaches) with at most populations of 10,000 people, you don't know crap about Han empire buddy.

[@jansenjunaedi4926]

Nope.. they were already a homogenous people during the han. The civil wars are based on individual ambitions rather than different culture, like the three kingdoms, everyone involved are han people vying to become emperor.

[@locutuslee2506]

There were variety of policies on currency and language during the Qin dynasty’s by the first emperor of China, by the end of the Han dynasty the Chinese people is relatively homogenous. There is also the Tang and Song Dynasties following the Han that solidified the Chinese identity during the height of its powers. Maybe learn a bit more about Chinese history things would be more clear.

[@rodgersmith1786]

Although Han had many different ethnic groups and different culture types, it was still very homogenous since after the Qin dynasty. Remember how the first Emperor of China did a mass burning of all cultural things because he believed that 1 China is the only China, in order to maintain his position, as well as to quell rivals who would no doubt use history. Yes, as the Han Empire expanded, they did take on many different ethnic groups who were too far from the central Imperial power but everything else in between was pretty "Han" chinese. Lastly, what "many civil wars" are you talking about~!? Their was only 3 major ones i can think of that lasted through the entire Han Dynasty!

[@aussieboy4090]

+Eric Langlois That only happens if the ruling emperor was incompetent resulting in an increase of corruption and instability. This, in turn, causes turmoil within the Chinese government and different factions begin to form, each with their own personal ambition of conquering China. On average, a Chinese dynasty can last for ~200+ years without much internal conflict, far outlasting most European empires with a ruling population and land area equivalent to China's. The Chinese Zhou Empire lasted for ~800 years, making it one of the longest ruling empires in human history.

[@day2148]

This video really shows just how different the two militaries were set up. The Roman's main adversaries were barbarians from the rough central European terrain, where mobility was limited and steadfast heavy infantry can hold the line easily. The Chinese' main foes were nomads on the arid/desert plains, where cavalry and archers reigned supreme. I feel field artillery was underrated here though. Both the Romans and the Chinese made extensive use of light field artillery. The Romans used batteries of scorpions, often pooled together dozens from across a legion, that could unleash effective barrages to cover a heavy infantry advance. The Chinese had even more artillery due to their practice of bringing heavy wagons onto the battlefield, ranging from man-portable siege crossbows to multi-bolt ballistas.

[@rgtaerghaerthaerghaerghad7854]

Actually wrong. The Romans main enemies were hellenic successorstates fighting in macedonian phalanx with strong missile support, and later parthians relyant on heavy cavalry.

[@Xiong-f2l]

The Nomads that Chinese defeated also went and defeated the Roman and Barbarians from Central Europe.

[@bencheevers6693]

Pretty sure the live action remake shows some true to life recreations of how Chinese forces would fight against flaming stones thrown from trebuches

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@Xiong-f2l Hard to say the Chinese defeated them, they literally had to build a bigass fucking wall to save themselves

[@Xiong-f2l]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 wtf you talking about? Han subjucated Xiongnu and thus they migrated west and became known as the Huns. Tang defeated the Goturks. Ming defeated Oirat.

[@doinker50]

Hot topic that we need to know: Philippines vs Canada

[@notsoprogaming9789]

As a canadian, the philippines

[@joaqincastro5613]

As a Filipino myself we can't attack Canada due to our not so powerful army but we can defend our country because most of our forces are know to fight in Guerrilla Tactics and so we can put up a good hella resistance but on technology and machines of war I wont count on it.

[@magnetisemplayz3839]

@@joaqincastro5613 Canada Will crush phillipines in a month

[@hello.3471]

Canada

[@hello.3471]

@@joaqincastro5613 no one would win tbh cz filipino forces cant reach canada but canadian might be able because of allies near the area but there is no way they will be able to acually land

[@ICHBinCOOLERalsJeman]

"I hear the Gauls got a magic potion" oh shit here we go again.

[@horatiuscocles8052]

@BARBATUS 89 Asterix

[@johnlane8053]

If the chinese internet picks up this video there'll be a crap storm of odd comments :S

[@arrowshade8700]

Well, population talks.

[@Intranetusa]

Google/KZbin is blocked in mainland China and they can't come here unless they have a VPN. Half the comments here are already fanboys who don't know anything about one side or the other and just denigrate the other side.

[@ifxxxhj]

chinese people say If the western internet picks up this video there'll be a crap storm of odd comments

[@devilhunterred]

@@Intranetusa You are severely underestimating the total manpower of Han. Han sent almost 100,000 infantry and cavalry to attack Alexander Eshate of Bactria in 101 BCE just because the Emperor HEARD that they had good horses. He just casually gave away 100,000 soldiers on a side-assignment because he simply had so many troops to spare. China had a population of 55 million where conscription and military service was mandatory, it had a standing professional army of 1 million and very likely tens of millions more when it comes to drafting. Han would have drowned Rome in manpower alone. This is not to mention advancement in weaponries that Han had such as the semiautomatic repeating crossbows and mangonels. Don't forget that the Han successfully repelled the Xiongnu westwards, who became the Huns and several centuries later directly caused the total collapse of Western Roman Empire because Romans just couldn't repelled them on their borders.

[@Intranetusa]

@@devilhunterred You are underestimating the manpower of the Romans, confusing the military recruitment system of the Han Dynasty, mistaking what a professional standing army is, and relying too much on stereotypes. First, the Romans also heavily relied on conscription all the way to the time of the Principate under the first emperor Augustus, and still relied on conscription (but to a lesser extent) afterwards. When the Romans were a smaller Republic, they still drafted close to 800,000 Romans and Italian allies during the Second Punic wars. The idea that the Romans only relied on volunteers is incorrect. In the 3rd century BC, the Romans threw away plenty of troops during the Second Punic War too - they sent 40,000 men at Trebia, 30,000 men at Lake Trasimene, and 90,000 men at Cannae - all within the span of 1 year. Most of these troops were lost in defeats against the Carthaginians. If you add up the numbers, the Romans suffered more causalities in this 1 year than the two armies of Han Wudi did in their expedition against Ferghana. A century later, the Romans lost over 100,000 troops in a single battle at Arausio but bounced back with more conscripted and volunteer armies to fight the Cimbri invaders after expanding their recruitment. Second, the Han did not have a "professional standing army" of 1 million - not even close. The milita army of the Western Han had a rotating conscription system where soldiers trained for a year and served for 1-2 years. They were cycled out regularly and didn't fight for a living, so they are not a professional army and not really a standing army. The formal professional armies were the standing Northern army and other units around the capital, which numbered around 20,000-30,000. The semi-professional frontier garrisons who were military colonists numbered in the tens of thousands up to maybe 100,000. During the time of Han Wudi, criminals, poor, and people of bad repute who constantly reenlisted formed a professional or semi-professional army that numbered between 100,000-150,000. Thus, if you add up the numbers of the Western Han military under Han Wudi, you end up with a combined total of maybe 250k of professionals and semi-professionals, and then supported by several hundred thousand non-professional rotated conscripts. This is roughly the same as the late Roman Republic/early Empire's manpower in the 1st century BC - during the final Civil War of the Roman Republic, Octavian and Marc Antony had about 500,000 troops composed of professionals, semi-professionals, and conscripts, though more would be on the professional/semi-professional side as the pay became lucrative. Fourth, there is no direct evidence that the Xiongnu became the Huns. There is only indirect evidence that only the northwestern branch of the Xiongnu migrated west, might have mixed with many different other nomadic tribes, and eventually became the Huns. Furthermore, the Western Huns only fought the already weakened Western Roman Empire and didn't even fight the Eastern Roman Empire. The Huns and their Germanic allies were also defeated by an alliance of Germans and the weakened Western Roman Empire. So that doesn't really say much about either the Romans or the Huns. And it was the Germanic tribes who actually defeated the Western Roman Empire. If you learn about Chinese history, you'll know that the Jin Dynasty (which reunited the Three Kingdoms and was basically a continuation of Han Dynasty style government) suffered internal strife and then got invaded by the [weakened] southern Xiongnu, Di, Xianbei, etc tribes and northern China was completely taken over and formed barbarian kingdoms while the Southern Jin became a weak rump state. Finally, if you look at more credible sources of the Han Dynasty talking about the army sizes and number of troops they sent against the Xiongnu and others, you are looking at individual army sizes between 5,000 to 70,000, or up to 100,000 for a mix of non-professional and prof/semi-professional troops. If you look at the largest professional armies of the Eastern Han Dynasty under Ban Chao who campaigned against the remaining northern Xiongnu, he had armies of Han troops + local auxiliaries + mercenaries that added up to a max of maybe 60,000-70,000. General Li Ling under the time of Han Wudi set out with only an army of 5,000 troops against the Xiongnu. Li Guangli who was sent to fight Ferghana had an army of 40-50,000 in the first invasion and up to 100,000 in the second invasion. The idea that ancient Chinese armies numbered in the millions or hundreds of thousands for each army is a fictional stereotype.

[@wanruzhao4229]

The GDP(estimate) of Han Empire( ancient China) was 2.4 times of Roman's. But for the military power it depends on different period.

[@mint8648]

source?

[@CatotheE]

@@mint8648 My guess is that there is none. At best... maybe they’re trying to compare the Han to Italy on its own.

[@theunknownpersonism]

You should do British Empire vs United States in either the interwar period or at 1914.

[@DoubleBourbonBaconCheeseBurger]

Jan James Callejo DUDE YES. Like pure war b4 ww1

[@svon1]

i would say the US would loose in 1914 but it would win in the inter war period simply cuz of the naval strength and on land it would be just trenches around Canadian cities the US would probably be forced to give up some territories like American Samoa

[@adampytlik8453]

Yea, Europe could still be the most influential continent if we weren't constantly at war with eachother, weakening ourselves.

[@anoncrazynonevilgooddecent7631]

@@adampytlik8453 not really, eventually rhe USA would overtake u even without both world wars

[@adampytlik8453]

@@anoncrazynonevilgooddecent7631 I disagree, yes, the US was rising and had great position by being large, not yet plundered of all it's riches by the Europeans and most importantly by being isolated. I can see it becoming one of the great powers, but it wouldn't surpass for example the Great Britain, France and Germany. If in this fictional war the European powers would become allies, the US wouldn't stand a chance, it would get completely obliterated.

[@thechannelimashamedof2361]

Some (very minor) gripes with this presentation. 1) No mention of Han artillery. They had pretty sophisticated traction trebuchets. That medieval Europeans and Arabs would both abandon Roman style artillery pieces in favour of such implements would seem to indicate that they were, at minimum approximately as effective. 2) Attacking supply depots/trains is stated to be a Roman tactic. Han armies did this as well, and Cao Cao (the leader of China in this scenario) won at Guandu by torching his enemy's supplies not once but twice. So I'm not so sure this should be listed as an advantage for the Romans, especially as the Han have the upper hand in cavalry and light infantry. 3) No mention of upstream logistics. I'm not the most well read on Chinese history, but I believe the Roman road system was both more extensive and intensive. Combined with the fact that the Mediterranean was mostly pirate free and effectively a super highway prior to the Crisis of the Third Century, Rome would seem to have better internal logistics. Otherwise a great video.

[@konstantinosnikolakakis8125]

Trebuchets were best used against walls in a siege, they were not as good in field battles, the only reason Alexander used them in a field battle in Thrace was because he was planning to besiege a city when the enemy attacked, and even then all the catapults did was scare the enemy.

[@RocketPropelledMexican]

I dunno about the road part, China had a well integrated road system dating to at least the first Qin dynasty (one of the lasting Qin achievements was standardizing the road system) However I'm pretty confident that China had a fuckton better river transportation than Rome, due to their extensive use of canal construction. Their geography is way better for canal transportation. Their whole mythos states that China started because of needing a political system to manage canals lol.

[@thechannelimashamedof2361]

@@konstantinosnikolakakis8125 Alexander didn't use trebuchets. They weren't introduced to Europe until much later.

[@thechannelimashamedof2361]

@@RocketPropelledMexican Not surprised if that's the case, just looked up "Han dynasty roads" and wasn't able to find any maps or anything of the sort. Guess it's what I get for lazy research. Now were these just covering major trade routes like the Royal Road of Persia and Grand Trunk Road of the Maurya? Or were they an intensive system that cover the whole empire like that of Rome and the Inca? As for river navigation, yes China certainly did have a leg up their (all though the Romans didn't exactly let the Rhine and Danube go to waste). China's density of navigable rivers and many canals linking them are a plus, I'm just not sure how it stacks up against the Mediterranean which is similarly an internal water way, but not as limited in terms of where it can carry you.

[@RocketPropelledMexican]

​@@thechannelimashamedof2361 Not a lot of english sources speak of Han Dynasty roads, probably because it was the earlier Qin Dynasty that really went on a massive road construction spree to y'know rule over his newly conquered country. The Han just organically expanded and renovated it. A lot of the smaller chinese states before and in between the two dynasties also constructed their own roads, Qin made them all the same width. For the Han, Shudao in particular is a mountain road network known for enabling the conquest of the difficult terrain of the Sichuan basin. You'd have to read chinese sources to get more of an idea I think. For comparing, I think it's two very different geographies and really not comparable. China has a strong internal network due to its heartland being plains and river systems suitable for transport. However it did have much weaker external connections. Rome definitely had much better foreign trade routes due to its proximity to the somewhat stable Near East cradle of civilizations and exploited its "Mare Nostrum" to full effect. China cannot do the same. Most of their land neighbors had been conquered or were too insignificant. Their only reliably reachable civilization of decent development are the Korean states, which are too small. The only reachable area with enough economic power to even compare to chinese economic size would have been India, which came with tons of problems. There's no inland sea a la the Mediterranean, they have to deal with unsecured sea lanes vulnerable to pirates/independent states who are too distant to subjugate (e.g. the Wokou Japanese), and in addition much harsher ocean weather. Overland transport via the silk road is limited by the massive obstacles of the southeast asia jungle mountains, the Himalayas, a notoriously harsh desert, and nomadic tribes who were opportunistic raiders at best and conquerors of China itself at worst. It takes almost A YEAR at best to get to the edges of India. Try visualizing the route of the silk road on google maps and note all the harsh terrain it has to pass through, and how far it is away from China's power base.

[@themax9913]

Eh, asterix village would conquer them both .

[@themax9913]

Elder of Zion well, he could , but you know them, they love to fight so ...

[@fegemarsilang5746]

Asteris and Obelix: Nah, I'd use toon force attacks

[@yourethatmantis5178]

I knew the moment I clicked on this video that it was going to be sponsored by Three Kingdoms or Imperator Rome or both

[@daftapeth3324]

"I hear the gauls got a magic potion!"

[@TheAmericanPrometheus]

lol asterix and obelix

[@kevinmeng5231]

Real Chinese folklore has even more inflated figures. The information used in this video are the estimates made by modern historians comparing folklore with whatever historical data they could gather, so in a sense, they should be fairly accurate, if not a bit conservative. Don't be surprised if you hear about claims on much stronger Chinese army; most people still believe in the stories and folklore.

[@Drownedinblood]

Why can't Romans inflate their numbers and victories? Is this not taken into account?

[@shadowdeslaar]

Like I said. If we only go off Modern Historians then nobody other then the original source should be trusted. Otherwise that source would’ve been defeated in that battle and it would’ve been the opposite. Instead Of Caesar defeating 120,000 Gauls it could’ve been 120,000 romans defeated by Gauls. But it’s not.

[@fredflintlocks9445]

@@Drownedinblood ancient Romans kept extremely meticulous records regarding deployment and manpower of legions, for the purposes of logistics, but today this gives us a remarkably accurate picture of the strength of the Roman military

[@johnrickgrimes5836]

What do you have without those stories and folklore almost nothing

[@doldemenshubarti8696]

even if we count the fact that numbers are inflated, it is still both historical and scientific truth that China consistently had most population and therefore most soldiers involved in any warfare. Ming at one time had nearly half of human population in the planet

[@Intranetusa]

This video didn't mention a few things. I'll bring up one thing about the Romans and two things about the Han: the Roman population/conscription, the Han Empire's siege artillery, and crossbows. 1) The Romans actually heavily used conscription all the way to the time of the Principate under Augustus and were also capable of fielding large armies too. The Romans had something like 770,000 Romans and Italian allies drafted or on the draft roll during the Second Punic Wars, and were capable of losing armies of 30,000, 40,000, and 90,0000 within 1 year at their defeats at Trebia, Lake Tresamine, and Cannae. The Romans also lost 100,000+ in a single battle at Arausio at the end of the 2nd century BC and still bounced back. 2) The Han Empire had traction trebuchets, siege crossbows, multishot siege crossbows, and siege crossbows mounted onto chariots and armored wagons. They would have been equal to Roman artillery such as onagers, scorpions, etc. 3) The Han crossbows would pose a problem for the Romans because the Han crossbow bolts would penetrate Roman scutums and Roman armor (lorica hamata - riveted chainmail). At Carrhae, we know that Parthian arrows were actually going through Roman shields and riveting the soldier's hands to their shields according to Plutarch in his "Life of Crassus." According to Cassius Dio's "Roman History Book XL," the Parthian arrows were flying into the Romans' eyes, piercing their hands, and penetrating the Roman armor. Han Crossbows would have given the Romans an even harder time because these were even more powerful than Parthian bows. For example, the "standard" 6-stone Han Dynasty crossbows were 387lb in draw weight with 20-21 inch powerstrokes. This is roughly equal to a 1200lb draw medieval European crossbow with a 6-7 inch powerstroke. The stronger recurve bows were roughly similar to English longbows in drawweight (160-180lbs) and had a powerstroke of ~27-28 inches (similar to English longbow arrows of 30 inches with draw of 28 inches). If you do the powerstroke-draw weight joule calculation, the standard Han Dynasty crossbow would have 50% more power than the top tier 180lb draw weight long bows and recurve bows. Parthian recurve bows probably didn't reach anywhere near 180 lb in draw weight, but even if they did, the "standard" Han crossbow would still be significantly more powerful.

[@qimingzhang3940]

I don't recall seeing Han with traction trebuchets. Most Chines siege weapons are man powered. Also, the big siege crossbows are more like Northern Wei/Tang era. Han crossbow would have problems with Roman armor also. Mostly because the Han apparently lost the methods of constructing bronze Qing crossbow. I am sure the crossbow would still be a problem because Roman armor isn't that great, but it wouldn't be too big of a problem because Han crossbow also isn't that great.

[@Intranetusa]

@@qimingzhang3940 Incorrect. 1) Traction trebuchets have been around since the Warring States period, and references to them are found several times in Records of the Three Kingdoms. Tsao Tsao destroyed many of Yuan Shao's archer towers or siege towers with traction trebuchets at the battle of Guandu. 2) The Qing is the 17th century AD Manchurian Dynasty. If you're talking about Qin, then the Han actually had better crossbows. They did not lose bronze casting technology and created upgraded versions of Qin triggers with extra features like trigger boxes that stabilized into the stock and aiming sights. Examples: imgur.com/JUvmIlz imgur.com/ooXz9Tr 3) Roman armor is actually pretty good. Riveted chainmail was used well into the 17th century and is impervious to sword slashes and most thrusts. 4) Big siege crossbows have existed since the Warring States period and there are lots of references to it. There are even large siege versions mounted on chariots and wagons. The Han era siege crossbows mounted on chariots and armored wagons called "Military Strong Carts." They used these types of weapons against nomadic cavalry, especially when they formed defensive wagon forts when surrounded by Xiongnu cavalry. The Huai Nan Zi ca. 120 B.C. describes a Wu Gang Che or Military Strong Cart, one of the few references to Han era field artillery: "Ancient soldiers were armed only with bows and swords; their spears had no pick-axes and their bills no hooks. But the soldiers of the late times have had to be equipped with battering rams for attack, and shields against the arrows; they shoot with multi-bolt crossbows which are lashed to carriages for the fight." The Han Shu or Records of the Han, says Li Ling's campaign of 99 B.C. used of a Han era siege crossbows/arcuballista. While fighting a defensive battle in steppe territory, Li Ling's army used wagon mounted giant crossbows in a defensive formation to defend against the attacking Shanyu cavalry. Siege crossbows and multishot siege crossbows mounted on carts and wheels since the Warring States centuries earlier, see quote from Needham: "The crossbow constructed in large size and mounted on a framework or carriage (Fig. 6) we shall call the arcuballista." ... " In Chinese texts the terms lien nu I (compound crossbow) or chhi nu2 (crossbow on acarriage) signify the multiple-bolt arcuballisla, while the multiple-spring arcuballista, though going by many names, may be recognised under the term chhuang (crossbow secured on a bed or framework). " ... Qin period siege crossbows: " The magicians whom he had sent on expeditions...saying that large sea-monsters (ta chiao) had prevented it; they therefore proposed that good marksmen with multiple-bolt arcuballistae should be sent to sea to destroy them. The emperor ordered that this should be done, and himself stood on guard with one of these machines waiting for some of the monsters to appear." Warring States siege crossbow: "The multiple-bolt arcuballista with which the rampart must be equipped is mounted on a carriage which has two axles and three wheels on a rectangular framework like that of a wagon" Source: Needham p. 185-189 "SCIENCE AND CIVILISATION IN CHINA VOLUME 5 CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY" monoskop.org/images/2/29/Needham_Joseph_Science_and_Civilisation_in_China_Vol_5-6_Chemistry_and_Chemical_Technology_Military_Technology_Missiles_and_Sieges.pdf

[@qimingzhang3940]

@@Intranetusa Cao Cao used catapult no? Do we have any evidence that it's a trebuchet and not a catapult? You are right about the Qin crossbow, I was wrong on that. The big siege crossbow I am thinking about was the Song era bow.

[@Intranetusa]

@@qimingzhang3940 The term "catapult" refers to a torsion-type weapon where the energy comes from twisted animal sinew. These were used by the Greeks and Romans until the early middle ages. The ancient Chinese did not use torsion based siege weapons so Tsao Tsao could not have used catapults. Sometimes the word catapult is loosely applied to other weapons such as the magonel (also known as traction trebuchet), but technically magonels are not catapults. The siege weapons used by Tsao Tsao were lever type traction trebuchets powered by men instead of animal sinew. Note, I'm referring to a traction trebuchet and not the larger counterweight trebuchet introduced by Mongols from Persia during the Song Dynasty. As for the big siege crossbows, yes, the Song Dynasty were known for very large siege crossbows and other types such as giant triple arcuballista crossbows. Other types of large siege crossbows were used by the Han Dynasty, Qin, and as early as the Warring States era as reference in my Needham source.

[@jansenjunaedi4926]

@@qimingzhang3940 the man powered ones are called traction trebuchet. While the the ones the romans used are torsion trebuchet, which was only adopted by china from the muslims.

[@boblaryson3621]

I feel like the discipline of the legions would prevail. Untrained militia would easily break while the roman formations practiced through experience with European and eastern cavalry would lessen Chinese cav effectiveness

[@ViscountNo7]

What a joke.

[@ViscountNo7]

@Vlnxd Roa they automatically assumed that all other empires could magically survive the massive attack from barbarians and maintine internal stability without elite professional soliders. If the arguments is which kind of professional training was more reasonable, then I will be more happy to have a discussion on.

[@Intranetusa]

The Han Empire's army wasn't a giant mass of poorly armed peasants as that is a huge misconception. The Han army was composed of professionals, militias, and mercenaries/auxiliaries. The militia portion was trained for 1 year and served for 1-2 years. Roman armies during the time of Vegetius were trained for ~4 months according Vegetius' De Re militari. Of course, professional Roman legions would have more experience on average because they would accumulate more experience through campaigning, but Han levied militia troops actually received much more upfront training than legionaires....so they would still be competently trained. Let's not forget that the Romans still used conscription to levy troops even after the Marian reforms - especially during times of need or constant warfare. Pompey conscripted legions during his civil war with Caesar. Germanicus levied legions after the battle of Teutonberg Forest and Marcus Aurelius raised several legions through conscription during the Marcomannic Wars. There isn't anything wrong with levied conscripted troops either - the pre-Marian Roman armies were basically a levied conscript militia and they defeated the professional mercenary armies of Carthage and the semi-professional armies of the Seleucids and Macedonians. Furthermore, the Han Army never numbered in the millions, and the Romans at times used conscription to raise huge numbers as well (eg. 800,000 drafted for the Second Punic War, or 400,000 legionaires + more support troops quickly raised during the Octavian-Antony civil war).

[@qimingzhang3940]

@@Intranetusa You are talking about the W. Han Empire only. The E. han has removed the military drills and 2 years of service requirement enforcement if not the requirement altogether.

[@Intranetusa]

@@qimingzhang3940 I read that military service requirements during the Eastern Han weren't totally removed, but were greatly lessened and could be avoided through taxes. They still did have well trained militia troops on the frontier to supplement the regulars and semi-regular armies, while the training for militia in the safe inner provinces became substandard by the end of the Eastern Han.

[@1984Phalanx]

I'm not very familiar with the Han, but let's not forget that many times the Romans fought much larger barbarian armies and won. Numbers alone don't win battles.

[@yunli3576]

The northern Germanic barbarian defeated by Rome was finally defeated by the Huns, and the Huns easily defeated the Western Roman army.

[@joshuawilliams9020]

@@yunli3576 Not really. The Huns under atilla where brutal where able to win battles. But the Roman where able to score such a victory that Huns never truly recover. And eventually the huns would be destroyed the Germanic Tribes. Matter of fact, it was Germanic Tribes that put end to the western empire. The Germanics where quite possibly the most successful of Rome enemies as they would form the basis of west post Rome.

[@gareththompson2708]

You're right, numbers alone don't win battles. But they are an important consideration.

[@rodgersmith1786]

To be fair, i would suspect Rome and China have the same number of men. As a matter of fact, the Han Chinese have been outnumbered as well as out horse in several battles against the northern steppe tribes. I would think Rome and Han share an equal amount of military power.

[@saint8257]

Large numbers with whole fields of army armed with repeated crossbow will have them sit in their turtle shell and die. Much like how they were pinned by the Parthians at the battle of Carrhae, only much much worse.

[@armchairwarrior963]

Han China defeated the bactrian and made them paid china tribute, Romans couldn't defeat the Parthian . bactrian and Parthian are contemporary and were very similar tech etc...China has mass production of weapons/armor. They would produce parts via different parts of the empire and final assemble else where. That is why china can have huge armies. You are also mistake Han heavy Calvary were very heavy armored. They were more so than their nomad counterparts. Han also used artillery crossbow and traction trebuchet on the battle field. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Heavenly_Horses

[@koonkoon01]

Since Bactria was more in the northeast of Parthia, the Romans had no way to actually fight them. Parthia in particular was larger than Bactria and could field an army enough for a Roman Legion. They had skilled horse archers and were more militaristic compared to their Greco-Bactrian counterparts. Bactrians had a sophisticated civilization though and were center of the trade between the East and the West.

[@ferrarisuper]

Armchair warrior anyway the Romans conquered Parthian and Sassanid capital Ctesiphon, and the Roman Emperor “Trajan” actually defeated Parthian Empire, but he did not have the time to fully annex it because he died.

[@GigglesClown]

china had huge armies because they had the population, geography, and relatively monolithic culture (everybody speaks the same language or close enough to it) that made huge armies possible. One of the most amazing things about the Roman's was their ability to bring in soldiers from so many different cultures and languages and make them a cohesive fighting force. Once you have those 3 it becomes far easier to equip and train those soldiers. The problem is that chinas system is set up to eventually lead to civil war, it's just that every time they fall apart/ get conquered the new ruling group will refer to themselves as chinese. It would be like the huns conquering Rome, setting up shop, and saying that they were the roman empire now

[@MrLi-fd4hs]

@@GigglesClown The politics of the Chinese Han Dynasty were actually more stable than the Roman Empire, because the Han Empire was the eldest son inheritance system. When the emperor died, everyone understood who would inherit the throne. The emperors of the Roman Empire were inherited in parallel, and civil strife often occurred in order to compete for the throne.

[@GigglesClown]

@@MrLi-fd4hs David Lee its true that china during the same period as the roman empire had fewer civil wars numerically but on the other hand chinas civil wars laster far longer. While there were a few civil wars before the Han collapse after that it pretty much continous civil war. From the start of the yellow turban rebellion in the mid 180s china would experience constant civil war, transitioning into the warlords period until the formation of Shu, Wu, and Wei Kingdoms around 220 which lasted until 280 AD. That ended with the jinn dynasty finally unifying china. They held it together for about 10 years before descending back into civil war during the war of the 8 princes which if I'm remember right then immediately switched into the sixteen kingdoms period. From there it switched into the northern and southern dynasty period which would finally conclude around the late 500s with the sui dynasty taking over and then being succeeded by the Tang who finally kept things together for the next few hundred years. So while both empire were in existence rome had more short civil wars (the 3rd century was terrible for both) in general. While China had fewer civil wars after the collapse of the Han dynasty, they lasted for far longer in terms of years spent fighting while both entities were in existence.

[@Flavius_Belisarius]

Good Lord are these comments ridiculous. China had more respect for Rome than most fanboys posting. They considered Rome an equal in the West. Both had advantages and weaknesses and we will never really know who would come out on top. I swear it's like people arguing about a lion fighting a tiger online and getting so invested in the what ifs they devolve into bickering ninnies over something meant to just be an entertaining guessing game.

[@destructo_mamba_embergb]

China will win 100%

[@Flavius_Belisarius]

@@destructo_mamba_embergb Perhaps, perhaps the Romans, perhaps a third option or fourth, and they continue on as the Persians against the Romans until 3rd parties destroy them. You can never know fanboy.

[@reiryghts639]

China wins but it'll be a Pyrrhic Victory. Rome is better

[@Flavius_Belisarius]

@@reiryghts639 Ah wtf, I can see the comment in the notifacations, but not when the click on the comment thread. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the Pyrrhic victory of Han China.

[@FlippableFlappy]

@@Flavius_Belisarius these types of videos never bring up the disparity in weapons between Roman and Chinese infantry, and always assume that the Chinese wielding predominantly polearms would be at a disadvantage when in fact every hema larper knows that pole arms were the dominant force on the battlefield until firearms. They also never highlight the fact that the chinese were using halberds, which again, according to hema larpers is the absolute pinnacle of melee combat weapons. Hmmm I wonder who would win, a short sword or a halberd? I think there is a reason euros in the Middle Ages dropped the gladius and adopted the halberd across the board lmao.

[@LeviathanSpeaks1469]

The more realistic question... What if Rome and Han China united against Parthia?

[@yoshilorak5897]

RIP Parthia.

[@alcapwn7622]

If we're being realistic, if a battle between these two empires were to take place it would be between relatively normal sized armies (40-50k). What really made a difference in ancient battles was troop quality and loyalty. They would engage in a pitched battle because both cultures did so often. Roman infantry would surely best the Chinese with better armor and training. The cavalry fight would be tough, but the Chinese would likely take advantage in this. The fight could go either way, but considering superior moral on the part of the Romans (being a volunteer force), I think Rome may carry the battle. This battle would be inconsequential in the scheme of things however as neither empire could conquer the other.

[@wisemankugelmemicus1701]

+Al Capwn If you think the Han Chinese have shit on the Romans, you are sorely mistaken.

[@0079Matthew]

@@asmdesign1956 That's incredibly inaccurate. Btw, a battalion is 300-800 soldiers. Also, the numbers mean very little. Moral is far more important, mass routes could occur to a large force from a much smaller force; and there are many examples of this in history.

[@0079Matthew]

ASM Seven It doesn’t say that last part. I have actually read the art of war. I collect psychology books. He speaks more on manipulating the opponent to take minimum losses mostly. You really know nothing? Now I know, lol. What a bluffer. Also, your English is terrible and barely understandable.

[@alcapwn7622]

@@asmdesign1956 You don't make sense. In real life, numbers did not equal victory. A well-trained and well paid army will best a larger conscript force every time. Dozens of battles ended this way throughout history.

[@shnyfan6609]

@@alcapwn7622Eh... no. A well-trained and well paid army does not best a larger conscript every time. For example: - All modern war that involve the US (Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan), - WW2 (Nazi vs USSR), - lots of battles in Napoleon War, - American independent war - many battles during the holy war between Christian and Islam, - many battles during Mongolian Conquest - almost all battles during Hannibal conquest - almost all battles during the Barbarians and Huns' invasions - almost millions of other war and battles worldwide In fact your statement is so wrong, that IF it's right. There would have been one single country on Earth right now, because the first country with a well-trained and well-paid army will beat and snowballing any enemies its encounter because the more they conquest, the more they can pay and train their invasion army

[@ac1455]

Bruh this comment section is saltier than Carthage

[@destructo_mamba_embergb]

Lol

[@bordergore7623]

Georgia the state vs Georgia the country with u.s military assess I’ll never quit!!!

[@weekendjail1417]

Do ittt

[@Anonymous-ld7je]

Georgia is home to Ft. Benning, which includes Airborne school, Ranger School, the Maneuver Center of Excellence (armor/cavalry school, where I trained back in the day), the U.S Army Sniper School, and more. It is true these are mostly TRADOC units (training and doctrine command), but if the resources and ample miliatry expertise possessed at Ft Benning was required in a hypothetical war against a small state like the nation of Georgia, the US state of Gerogia would utterly crush them. Georgia happens to be the state where much of the training, and therefore expertise, of combat MOSes in the US army is located. In my opinion, a small country like Georgia wouldn't have much of a chance. Hope that helps answer your question.

[@historyrhymes1701]

Lmao

[@lifes40123]

han would win in firefight or cavalry fight. romans would win in siege, infantry, and naval fight

[@Intranetusa]

Agreed. Both sides had their strengths and weaknesses and their armies were specialized in fighting certain types of enemies. Post-Marian principate era Romans were heavy infantry centric, allowing them an advantage in siege and CQC infantry clashes. Early Eastern Han Dynasty armies were massed firepower pike and shot-esque armies (with crossbows instead of guns) backed by large diverse cavalry continents. Of course the Han Empire did still have good infantry and Romans did still have decent archers and good cavalry, but the two specialized in firepower + cavalry and heavy infantry respectively.

[@devilhunterred]

@@Intranetusa False. Han had much more experience sieging much bigger and stronger cities. 80% of ancient warfare in China was fought in sieges. Rome would win in a heavy infantry or any infantry frontal clash if Han could not use their numerical superiority. Han had more light infantries, more archers and better cavalries. Although Rome would had better trained, more disciplined core troops flanked by auxiliaries.

[@Intranetusa]

@@devilhunterred False. First, the Han did not have much of a numerical superiority because the Romans were also heavily using conscription. If you look at the records of Han army sizes commanded by famous generals for a single battle or operation, they numbered something like 5,000 for general Li Ling, 40,000-70,000 for Ban Chao (with only a fraction of Han troops, the rest being mercenaries and auxiliaries), and 40-50,000 and then 100,000 for Li Guangli's invasion of Ferghana respectively. This is comparable to what the Romans had during the mid-late Republic to Principate - 90,000 troops at Cannae, 100,000+ troops at Arausio, 30-40,000 troops at Trebia and Tresamine, 40-50,000 for Crassus' army at Carrhae, and ~70,000 for Caesar's army at Alessia. Han Wudi sent 200k+ troops against the Xiongnu Confederation, and Trajan sent 100k-200k troops against the Dacians and Parthians. The Romans heavily used conscription all the way into the Principate era under Augustus and then still kept it around to a lesser extent afterwards. Second, the Romans also engaged in many many sieges and siege like battles. Caesar's troops were extremely skilled at besieging an enemy city while building a wall around themselves when they became besieged - that type of skill comes from decades if not centuries of accumulated military skills. Most battles everywhere were probably siege battles but don't get the glory of field battles. I'm giving the Romans an edge in sieges since siege battles heavily rely on heavy infantry fighting in close quarters, which means the Han Dynasty's cavalry, long pike formations, and rotating crossbow lines would not be as effective here. Though the Han's crossbows and larger numbers of archers would make "defending" in sieges easier.

[@bigbrothersinnerparty297]

Intranet Caesar was long dead by this time, most of the Roman wars of this era were fought against barbarians and only a few against some Parthian forts, meanwhile Cao Cao would have had to fight in countless siege battles here to reunite China, as the walls were massive and especially thick, such as 40 meters in extreme cases and 20 meters on average so the Chinese army was better at long and treacherous sieges and the Romans could use their siege weapons which are actually useless against the especially thick Chinese walls

[@Intranetusa]

​@@bigbrothersinnerparty297 ​If you want to discuss a battle during the life of T'sao T'sao in the late 2nd century AD, then that weakens your overall argument because that was a time of significant weakness for the Han Dynasty. First, many of the battles of the late Han/early Three Kingdoms era were fought with poorly trained troops because the Han Dynasty was collapsing and their military training system had collapsed and training had heavily degraded in standards for the inner core provinces. That makes it far worse than the Romans "only" fighting against barbarians or Parthian forts. Scholars believe that there was a heavy emphasis on duels in both the ROTK novel and the historical records precisely because many troops had poor morale, and victory or defeat depended on the valor displayed by their generals. This is in contrast to the earlier Han period or later 3K era (when Tsao Tsao wasn't around) when troops were better trained with better morale and duels were rare or didn't happen. That is why by the mid-Three Kingdoms era, duels became extremely rare because military training were restored to good quality standards and troops become well trained again. Duels were no longer necessary for morale by that point.

[@martinblake2278]

Me and my college friends actually created a war game simulator years ago using java script code. We were trying to build an Age Of Empires-like game back then but has more accurate battle formations and more complex tactics. We did a lot of research on Han army compositions as it is unknown to Westerners, and we found out the ff: 1. Almost all of Han army veterans are relegated in the Cavalry - the reason for this is that most of Han's enemies back then are on horseback. 2. Han infantry is not a potent fighting force - the reason is infantry is used more as a police force, firemen, and frontier guards. Forced conscription is the preferred method of the Han army and after 1 year they can return to their past lives but some individuals do serve for up to 3 years depending on the threat from barbarian tribes. A famous chinese scholar at that time even commented at the annual movement of conscripts throughout the empire and how the soldiers won't learn of the skills of the barbarians. 3. Han doesn't use that many iron/steel armor. Even the richest soldiers and generals actually wear silk, jade, and bronze for their armor. For the common soldier, their armor is made of either wood, leather, or bronze (for those that can afford this metal). 4. Han relies heavily on mercenaries and pit other tribes against one another. They also rely on armies provided by provinces and tributary states. They actually resemble the armies of Darius' Persia. 5. 15,000 for a veteran cavalry force is somewhat accurate. Our estimate back then was between 13,000 to 17,000. Meaning a huge majority of Han cavalry is unexperienced and/or very likely made up of mercenaries. The number that we came up with is 100,000 cavalry. 6. The repeating crossbow is a weapon issued to peasants who are defending towns and cities from marauding horsemen. It can cause havoc on lightly armored units but can't penetrate bronze armor. Soldiers back then still use a larger non repating heavier version of the crossbow as it is more powerful. Repeating crossbow is seldom used in set piece battles but more on defense of forts and walls. 7. Very likely that Han will be able to field the larger army as they have more citizens and Han have a great granary system in place. So we gather all the data we have for both Rome and Han and encoded it into our simulation. We actually upgraded Han a little bit, as it was becoming apparent that Rome would beat Persian army compositions, so instead we made their armies resemble that of Parthia but with more cavalry and they are using more iron than they used to. And the outcome of the simulation leads to a longer war but with Rome still being the victor. The arguments outputted by our simulation on why Rome would win are as follows. 1. Roman legions actually defeated Parthia in the end. Parthia's cavalry tactics although effective in the early wars was no longer a match in the latter conflicts. Parthia itself was on the verge of being conquered and the only thing that prevented them from being 100% absorbed was that Rome realize that its legions are already overextended. 2. Roman legionaires have proven so many times that it can stop charges from the Macedonian Phalanx, Carthaganian Elephants, British and Egyptian Chariots, African Shock Cavalry, Parthian Armored Cavalry, and German Berserkers. Not only did Roman legions stopped those powerful units, they also defeated them. 3. Roman legions in numerous occassions have defeated armies that are 20 or more times its own size. 4. Roman tactics does involve a lot of trying to predict enemy food supply locations and they are actually very good at hunting these supply trains and force their enemies to face them on a set piece battle. That's the reason why roman legions build a lot of roads, walls, and forts. This tactic has cornered so many formidable opponents and forced them to fight Romans directly. 5. Roman Legions are only weak againt cavalry in open flat terrains but has the advantage in others. But even at a disadvantage they were still able to defeat cavalry heavy armies on these flat terrains. 6. Heavy Armored Infantry actually has the advantage over any Melee Cavalry on 1v1 close combat. If the 1st charge doesn't work and terrifies/rout the opponents, then it's highly likely that the Cavalry would lose. 7. Apparently cavalry are harder to replace than heavy infantry. They just cost more and rich or decent earning folks are the only ones that can afford them. And with those arguments Rome won 92 out of 100 battles, with the 8 defeats occuring only on the first 12 battles. Han won the first two encounters btw decisively and having close and phyrric victories in the end. And to close this very long post, 2 of my friends did worked for Creative Assembly. =)

[@day2148]

The think most people miss is that while the Han made extensive use of cavalry, they were used as an elite interception/reserve force rather than say -- relying on cavalry charges. Instead, Han relied overwhelmingly on ranged weapons to do most of the killing (light/heavy crossbows, siege crossbows, light ballistas, multi-shot ballistas, etc). The campaigns of the famed Han General Wei Qing showed this best: he would arrange his heavy wagons into circles to create a mobile fortress, fill the wagons with crossbowmen/archers, and maintain a central force of 5,000 elite cavalry within this mobile wagon ring to plug gaps and counterattack enemy charges. The real problem for the Roman commander would be how to close the distance to the enemy while under missile file. Testudo formation is not known for its mobility, and Chinese troops' preference of lighter armor is because they want to retain mobility (in their battles vs nomads)

[@martinblake2278]

@@day2148 Actually Han tactics consists of ranks of infantry (halberds, swords, and spears) with crossbowmen as support and light cavalry at the wings. The formation you are mentioning has only been described on one battle. I do agree that Crossbowmen are a favorite unit but it's not that godly of a weapon as you are trying to portray. In later years, after Han's defeat to multiple nomadic tribes, Han's armies adapted to mirror that of the tribes they constantly fight with. Formations during the cavalry years consist of Horse Archers and Melee Cavalry with infantry creating a front line. The Horse Archers would attack first, followed by the Melee Cavalry. If the enemy doesn't rout the Melee Cavalry would perform a feigned tactic trying to lure enemies into pockets that can be surrounded. But the most utilized tactics is Melee Cavalry first, followed by infantry second, with Horse Archers trying to flank. Those are just generalized description of what I've read but they do follow the tactics and strategies that all cavalry heavy armies in the past did. But the thing is, Legionnaires are very good against these tactics though. In fact, during Crassus' disastrous defeat at the hands of Parthia, the Legionnaires were the last units standing and enduring arrows/missiles for days. Once the Romans learned the tactics, they actually utilized more archers (from Syria and Crete) to counter the horse archers, light auxiliary cavalry (from Gaul, Scythia, and Africa) to chase those horse archers, while keeping their heavy cavalry in reserve or ambush for an anvil and hammer tactic, and they've been very consistent and good at it ever since.

[@buukute]

Well, they warfare still implement til this day and age. Why would I risk my limb to fight them in close combat?

[@ljwljw21]

The sad fact is Rome is simply not comparable to Han in many ways. Rome is a slave empire while Han is a bureaucratic centralized state. More-over, Han steel production is far more advanced which Europe only got to catch up in 17th century. Han eliminated Xiongnu, Rome got wrecked by the Huns.

[@perotaccc8732]

China has been a slave-serf country for two thousand years, but more often it doesn't need to be bought and sold, so stop your fantasies

[@Madiar99]

This is sad my ancestors is Xiongnu

[@lsxu149]

@@perotaccc8732 you totally wrong

[@antivirus_protection]

​@@lsxu149 > Says someone is wrong > Doesn't elaborate why > Think you proved something

[@lsxu149]

@@antivirus_protection he deleted, I forgot what he said

[@夜深了-z2o]

Infantry(without archer):Rome Cavalry:Han Army size:Han Navy:Rome Population:Rome iron making technology:Han Archer:Han

[@elchudcampeador5642]

Good sum-up

[@destructo_mamba_embergb]

acually china had a bigger navy than the romans

[@tercomada]

De mierda era, militarmente roma superaba ​@@destructo_mamba_embergb

[@bulgar.slayer]

Now justify it..

[@biwnzixebrxb4786]

@@destructo_mamba_embergb all for crossing rivers only.

[@ORYZAAMANS-dc4se]

You forgot to mention that China had tens of thousands of Kung fu masters that can fly, roundhouse and karate chop their way to victory...

[@gendoruwo6322]

also, Lu Bu !

[@fegemarsilang5746]

​@@gendoruwo6322 nah, bros gonna get annihilated by Aurelian

[@whatbuttondoipush]

You forgot that the Roman soldier was 50% soldier and 50% construction worker. They'ed have walls and fortresses up in no time flat thus adding to their defensive capabilities. They're known for building a 10 mile wall , with 24 guard towers, around a city while sieging it and another 14 mile wall to protect their flanks. Along with 100's of pitfalls and spike traps and trenches.Just like the the siege of the Gaul King Vercingetorix in the battle of Alesia. This happened many many many times in Roman history.

[@MrCastodian]

And shall they stay inside walls for the rest of their lives? No, eventually they have to face the enemy and then their construction capability are irrelevant.

[@channelz7540]

@@MrCastodian they could use their defences to control the battle and build things to bleed the chinese

[@outdooradventureHungary]

a Roman soldier was a very bad soldier in 1 :1 Combat they fail ,the strenght of the Roman army was their command and strategic System,they had already structures from the 18 century ,forgot the movies abouth a Roman soldier who are Fighting with a Sword against,they operate in big Groups together,this make them dangerous

[@MrCastodian]

channel z Why would they engage a fortified Roman Army? They know they can’t stay fortified for a long time, they will starve and die, they need massive supply lines, they can’t stay inside a wall with several hundreds thousands troop for many days, they must engage the enemy.

[@jannegrey]

@@MrCastodian What he's saying is that even smallest units of Roman Legionaries made fortifications. If the Han attacked they would be at a disadvantage. There are lots of ways that this kind of defensive walls can and were used for offensive purposes. Like cutting off supply lines or reinforcements. Then the Chinese would have to sit behind the wall, that they didn't build, and would have to put significant forces to one place to allow for passage of Supply/Reinforcements - Probably more man would have died in such attack, then reinforcements had. Look at this for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYaUdp1vjtanbJo . Also this is Hypothetical War that could not have ever happened. By this time (and frankly for at least 300 years prior) had superior weaponry, armor and training as a whole army. Things like Lorica Segmentata (Iron or mild steel), not to mention the large shields, gave them very good technological superiority.

[@gelgamath_9903]

Since president Duterte is threatening to declare war on Canada you should do a video on Canada vs the Philippines

[@xeji4348]

Neither one would reach eachother. They don't rely on each others production either, so this war would be pointless.

[@somedude3448]

@@xeji4348 thats not the point

[@lamalien2276]

I'm Canadian and I had no idea we were gonna have a war. Man, we'd be in trouble. there are a lot of Filipinos here.

[@lego501stTrigger]

The scenario should have been this: a Roman general is given orders by the Emperor to conquer the Parthian Empire, and capture any territory east of it, meanwhile in China, an expedition is sent to Greco Bactria to capture valuable trade centers in the region. Said Roman general raises 20 legions totaling 160k troops, spread among him and his subordinate, one to march north and befriend local tribes to attack whatever force the Parthians can muster up there, and the second to attack Mesopotamia and the Persian gulf, opening Roman expansion towards the Indian subcontinent. On the other side, the Chinese army of 200k has begun to campaign in the Fergana valley, winning many great victories against the Greco-bactrians, when new orders are brought, they must wipe out the Kingdom, capture the treasury that fled south with the remaining army, and set up on the border of whatever territory is on the other side of Bactria. Back in the north, Roman scouts bring back evidence of a massive army nearing the border of Parthia. The southern Roman force is notified, and once they have finished conquering the majority of Southern Parthia, march north to meet up with the subordinate's army. Together, they march towards the border. On the Chinese side, reports of a huge foreign army are heard, and the Chinese believe that this is the final force that the Greco-Bactrians have mustered in India, and march to destroy it. After a week, the armies finally meet. Han skirmishers and Roman Velites trade javelins and arrows. The Romans send a party to open a diplomatic channel, but they are rebuffed as they do not have a single person who can communicate with the Chinese, and likewise with the Han army to the Romans. Signals are mixed, the diplomats with Imperium give an impression of arrogance and hostility. The Chinese expel them, and prepare to fight. The two sides prep for battle, Gallic and German cavalry on the left, Heavy cataphracts and Parthian skirmishing cavalry on the right. Legionnaires take the center, with two lines in the back. They created their fortified camp in the rear, and deposited all of their baggage there. Chinese baggage is held in their unfortified camp, and all soldiers are looking forward to the moment in which battle commences.

[@rgtaerghaerthaerghaerghad7854]

Then the chinese cavalry deives its auxilia counterpart from the field and attempts to charge the phalanx. The solid wall of shields easily rebuffs repeated charges, and the roman field artillery is proving superior to chinise missile troops, that are similarly ineffectove at piercing roman heavy plate and tower shields. The chinese decide to advance their main body while they retain the numerical advantage and pull their cavalry back for an envelopment attack. Battle lines meet, and the legionary phalanx effortlessly pushes through the chinese light spearmen a poor mockery of the hellenistiv phalanx it was built to counter. The chinese cavalry attempt a flanking manouver to prevent disaster, but they realise tha the auxilia has rallied and is mounting an assault on the unprotected chinese encampment. They hastily pull back, along with the missile troops, whilst the Roman infantry drives its Chinese counterpart from the field. The chinese are still packing their camp in preparation for withdrawal, when the reformed Roman march column appears on the horizon and spreads into three consecutive lines of battle..... See thing is, Rome has plenty of experience dealing with the fighting style of the Han, and their strategy is built almost to hard counter it. The only thing that could possibly give them any trouble is the cavalry, which they could deal with by closing their lines, or retreating to their fort. Couple that with better troop morale, logistics and commandstructure, and yeah, this is not a fair fight.

[@reinatr4848]

Rome: Has height in 117 C.E. Han: Has height in like 100 C.E. Binkov's Battlegrounds: Both sides were near height in 210.

[@Intranetusa]

Arguably, the Western Han's height was around 100 BCE and the Eastern Han's height was around the 80s-90s AD. Around the 100s AD, the Han became a bit politically unstable from internal politics. So Binkov's Battleground is even more off on their timeline.

[@yiyangqin4527]

very important stuff. Which this guy actually mentioned at the very begining. That both empire have different golden age and weak time, so it is meaningless to compare both empire in a exact time period. However, at the end it becomes "because of conflict of warlord" ok. Now you are using the roman's strong(or at least unite) time to compare with Han-split time, this is nonsense dude. That is the problem that a middle-school student shouldn't have when writting an essay

[@reinatr4848]

@@yiyangqin4527 ....three kingdoms?

[@yiyangqin4527]

@@reinatr4848 if you recheck the video, you will find this problem very soon, so obvious problem and werid logic

[@concernedliberal4453]

If they need such a big field, why couldn't they just use the Gobi Desert? Also, you forgot to specify whether nukes are forbidden in this hypothetical scenario!

[@concept5631]

Because its a big ass desert.

[@lordwar7678]

better question is, which empires falls first because of a another civil war.^^

[@LockeRobsta]

The Praetorian Guard would have sold out Septimius for some purple silk cloaks and a harem of Chinese waifus.

[@belzibubtom9546]

To barbarians!? Never! If it was another Roman however.....

[@MrAlepedroza]

7:52 If I recall well, the romans under Augustus actually fielded like 110 thousand troops in the Battle of Philippi. Other than that, great job again Binkov. Next video: Spanish Habsburg Empire vs Ottomans when Mehmed's plans of invading Italy are actually carried out.

[@Tonyx.yt.]

actualy around or almost 100k for each side

[@mint8648]

Ottomans did invade italy during the 16th century, several times

[@doldemenshubarti8696]

Roman empire already got rid of near peer enemies early on. It didnt need to do all-in type deal frequently. The reason why China seemed to have fielded ridiculous amount of armies is because they did lot of all-in type wars mixed with professional, volunteer, reserve, and conscript soldiers

[@casbot71]

Just be relieved that they didn't have the internet in 220AD or you'd be getting so many complaints right now.

[@qimingzhang3940]

What do you mean Heavy Armored Cavalry were not used by the Chinese. We have an inventory slip of Chinese armory in the Dong commandery, it has 5,000 suits of cavalry armor. Here is a Han era cavalryman in armor, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Nswag%2C_dinastia_han%2C_cavallo_e_cavaliere.JPG/180px-Nswag%2C_dinastia_han%2C_cavallo_e_cavaliere.JPG, here is a Wei cavalryman in armor, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Cernuschi_Museum_20060812_128.jpg/180px-Cernuschi_Museum_20060812_128.jpg.

[@ohyeahyeah6313]

Stop using a vpn reeeee

[@Flw-uv2md]

Nice one bro

[@jadanielnegrete]

Haha, magic potion, I love that reference to Asterix

[@abrahampalacios9814]

If im not mistaken, there are records about a roman legion that fled to China, presumably after the battle of Carrhae. In there, The roman legion fougth against Han soldiers. The fight was so hard that even the chinnese general wrote about them in its diary. At the end, the legion lost, but endend guarding the Han frontiers

[@ODSTspam3]

That's a heavily disputed claim, most historians think thats basically fan fic

[@MrLantean]

Actually the theory about Roman soldiers appeared in China is based on the interpretation of a Han Dynasty text by Oxford Professor Homer A Dubs. He was translating a battle report written by the Han Dynasty general during a military campaign against the Xiongnus, a nomadic people thought to be the ancestors of the Huns. In the report, a group of soldiers on the Xiongnu side was in a 'fish-scale' battle formation which Dubs interpreted as Roman testudo formation. Based on his interpretation, Dubs theorized that these soldiers were Romans most likely survivors from Carrhae. In 2011, Dr Christopher Anthony Matthew from Australian Catholic University proposed an alternate theory that these soldiers were not Roman soldiers but most likely descendants of Alexander the Great's Greek-Macedonian soldiers.

[@calebbyars]

Cannae was not the largest Roman force. Not even close. Phillipi alone had hundreds of thousands of men. Nearly 40 legions plus auxiliaries. I get the point he is trying to make, but there are multiple examples of massive Roman forces.

[@alexandrejosedacostaneto381]

True, but Philipi was a civil war, so neither side commanded hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Well over 100 thousand fought, but they fought divided in different armies

[@whosdali2004]

汉打败的是最巅峰的匈奴，罗马还能被西逃的匈奴打，我不说谁比较强，你可以说罗马当时很弱之类的，但是罗马能说自己巅峰时候一定能打过巅峰匈奴？如果巅峰匈奴在罗马北边，罗马可能都不存在

[@bulgar.slayer]

The Xiongnu most likely were not Huns

[@Derrick-y8t]

⁠@@bulgar.slayerWhere is hun come from？

[@bulgar.slayer]

@@Derrick-y8t I do not know

[@Derrick-y8t]

@@bulgar.slayer So，why you think hun isn't xiongnu？

[@bulgar.slayer]

@@Derrick-y8t No evidence that they were

[@kenjimiao967]

I agree that Roman Army were superior at that time but only at the western country. However, Roman has nothing near the Chinese Army Skills, Technology, and tactics. The Chinese Army are Large in number with excellent General as the Chinese already master countless art of wars which the famous"Shun Zhu the Art of War" . The Chinese is the first one to use crossbow and even invented the 床弩 (chuang nu) which have the precise range of 1000m at that time. Their strategy and army formation is not something Roman troop could really align with. At that time, China is the MOST ADVANCED country in the world. Not the right time to mess with them.

[@shadowdeslaar]

Kenji Miao just no

[@Hhehha1937e7]

bullshit riceman

[@majorianus8055]

As part chinese and lover of it's history I tend to agree to the video's conclusion. Yes Han Empire might win a prolonged conflict in a hypothetical world where they are close to each other, only because it has a more homogenous population and stable government. Roman Emperors after losing a battle might lead to a disastrous civil war. But China is not the most advanced around 200 AD. They are 200 years before and 200 years after but not by that time. Roman Generals are extremely good too and have sources to military tactics on par with Shun Tsu.

[@makky6239]

Nothing near? Chinese and they're arrogance

[@ninjaknight6715]

Sometimes I wonder what life would have been like if the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, or even the Byzantine Empire survived.

[@derederekat9051]

without moral and a national resolution, a nation cannot survive.

[@ninjaknight6715]

@@derederekat9051 Still would be interesting to know how things would have been like if they lasted till this day. Same for the Spartans, I would imagine they would be a Nation for Hire or something given how Militaristic they are. I love thinking about this stuff.

[@AhmetwithaT]

Even if they somehow survived past the middle ages, they couldn't have gotten past the emergence of nationalism in the 19th century.

[@arrowshade8700]

I think Binkov didn't find much data to support Han Chinese military capability simply because he can not read the ancient Chinese article or related Chinese documents.

[@jansenjunaedi4926]

I agree, there are some flaws i found: 1. Han army are less battle hardened? They kick the xiongnu nomads and suppressed the southern tribes like romans fighting germanic tribes. 2. Internal conflicts? Didn't rome also had internal conflicts too? 3. Romans can attack chinese logistics? Welp, the chinese knows well about logistics that its hard to attack logistic points especially if only relying foot legionnaires or light cavalry. 4. Even when fighting in hard terrains like mountains the roman legions will be in disadvantage. Can't fully utilize testudo, slower to move and could be ambushed by chinese crossbowmen in choke points.

[@arrowshade8700]

@@jansenjunaedi4926 I have seen too many self-claimed Yankee China experts who have never been to China.

[@teltel6235]

@@arrowshade8700 😂😂😂😂😂fr

[@rodgersmith1786]

@@arrowshade8700 To be fair, you don't need to be in China, or Europe to have an interest in certain topics of the world. A bit harsh now, don't you think? By saying so, Binkov should not even exist as a channel, but of course many beg the differ thankfully. +

[@kristiannicholson5893]

@@jansenjunaedi4926 No Rome was very stable at this point in history, it was nearing the end of the Pax Romana, a 200 year period of nearly continuous peace and prosperity.

[@eXcommunicate1979]

The main problem with the Han armies was that more than 2/3rd of their impressive numbers of troops they can field are militia and conscripts. Same issue with the Achaemenid armies fielded against Alexander's 90% professional force.

[@MrLantean]

Han Dynasty practices a conscription system recognized today as national service where able bodied men are required to serve 2 years in the military upon reaching certain age. Many choose to return home after completing terms of service while the rest stay behind to become professional soldiers. These professional soldiers comes primarily from poorer families and life in the military offers better opportunities. Their families are cared for by the government and receive regular financial and food aids. For those who choose to return home, they must continue to drill and serve in their home unit especially after the harvest season. The purpose of the national service is to train as many soldiers as possible during peace time as war can breakout at any moment. Once wars do breakout, large numbers of battle ready soldiers are mobilized on a short notice. Han military has both professional and reserve soldiers.

[@Tizonwar8]

Also Alexander had a lot of cavalry units. Whereas Romans didn't. If you train your self for 20 years can you stop a horse charge? Chinese has a lot of cavalry. That should settle argument. The Chinese infantry was just a shield unit that act as a distraction.

[@johnfellower8018]

"Conscription" is a contentious word. The way the Han had their "conscription" is analogous to national service in today's professional militaries. Based on records of Han Arsenal in just a single commandery would show a professional army armed and armoured to the teeth. The Han managed a counter nomad invasion across desert and steppe and penetrated into Lake Baikal, displacing a people that would itself further displace people who eventually exacerbate the downfall of Rome, showing further reach and superior logistics and capabilities than the Romans.

[@bluemarlin8138]

@@MrLantean That’s fair, but the vast majority of the Roman army served much more than 2 years and were truly professional soldiers. The Roman Empire was also nearly constantly at war in some place or another since it was far more heterogeneous than the Han Empire, so the Roman soldiers would have much more combat experience. No matter how well-trained the Han military was, the Romans would have the edge (at least in the first year or two of the conflict) because they were battle-hardened. By the time the Han military closed the experience gap, the Romans surely would have adapted to the Han tactics which caused problems for them. The Han would probably do the same, but given Roman practicality and engineering prowess, my money is on them.

[@MrLantean]

@@bluemarlin8138 That's because vast majority of the Roman army are poor landless peasants and urban poor. They enlist into the army as life in the army offers better opportunities. They get better meals, better medical care and better wages that are several times that of an ordinary worker. Best of all, receiving lands for retirement after completing 16 to 20 years of military service. Han Dynasty conscription system is analogous in today's national service where able bodied men served in the military for 2 years. Han professional soldiers also like Roman professional soldiers derived primarily from poor landless peasants and urban poor. They stay behind after completing 2 years of compulsory military training as life in the military offers better opportunities. Families of professional soldiers are taken care by the government and receive regular financial and food aids. After completing 20 years of military service, they receive honorable discharge and receive lands for retirement. Roman soldiers are more battle-hardened as Rome constantly on a war path. Rome enjoy going into war as it brings new lands and resources into the empire. Roman politicians often use war to secure their political careers if they are triumphant. Han Dynasty on the other hand prefer peace over war and will only to go war as a final resort. Han military is also high adaptable like the Romans. After the second unification of China, the greatest threat to the Han Dynasty is the nomadic people from presently day Mongolia. In the beginning, the Han use infantry to deal with them but soon learn that it is futile to do so. So it adapt and emulate the nomadic way of warfare: mounted warriors. Han Dynasty develops a strong cavalry and uses speed and mobility to deal with the more mobile mounted nomadic warriors. It adapts, emulates and modifies the ways of nomadic warriors fought on horseback. They even posts ads on border posts enticing nomadic warriors to train Han cavalry nomadic fighting style in returns for rich rewards. Eventually some nomadic warriors tired of nomadic way of life arrive and got employed as instructors. Roman engineering skills are well-known due to wide-spread publications. Han Dynasty soldiers also displayed good engineering skills. In newly occupied territories, Han soldiers constructed roads to ensure smooth constant flow of supplies and reinforcements. They also construct fortifications to ensure safety in hostile territories. Both sides will observe and adapt each other's tactics, strategies and fighting style. It is very hard to determine the victor. Both sides will win and lose battles. However on the long run, the most realistic result will be a stalemate.

[@ericjohnson7234]

Dont foget about the Romans logistics system and boder defenses and fortifications. Romans, would win via infrastructure, though the han would have homefield advatnage. But since this is a hypothetical. The answer I'd give is. Who knows who'd win.

[@day2148]

You do realize you're talking about the culture that already built first iteration of the Great Wall? And more canals than the rest of the world put together at this point? Not to mention they worship a hydraulic engineer (Yu the Great) as their deity?

[@nodosa994]

@@day2148 Yea not to mention, by 210 A.D, the Chinese would roughly have something similar to a wheel barrel while Romans still had to pack things on wagons and horses. This clearly shows that the Chinese already had a strong nose for constructing things. Not that i'm trying to underplay Rome's wonders, but Han was quite literally the true counterpart to the Roman Empire.

[@day2148]

@@julesbrags1661 actually, yes. Chinese battles are filled with records of fortified frontline encampments being erected within days. The law that conscripts chinese peasants for army service also demand they put in public works service every few years, so pretty much all chinese peasants are well-acquainted with infrastructure construction. They won't be as experienced or well trained, but even the freshest recruit will have worked on construction before.

[@denrittejanant7049]

you forgot to add Lu bu to the equation.

[@Litany_of_Fury]

He gonna start flying or something?

[@jaquanzxcxz]

друг yez

[@peiranzhang4283]

@@Litany_of_Fury He will cut down many Romans.

[@Litany_of_Fury]

@@peiranzhang4283 While riding a dragon?

[@peiranzhang4283]

@@Litany_of_Fury No, a horse you dumb ass. He was a great warrior, and led a 5000 men elite heavy cavalry force.

[@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870]

What if the planned Ottoman invasion of Italy in 1461 was put into motion instead of being delayed until 1480? Would it have stood a chance against a much weakened Italian Legue instead of turning into a disaster?

[@SpanishDio]

Catholic league* not italian league, think that at that time all of souther Italy was Spanish

[@CatotheE]

In 1461 it probably would have been sunk by the Venetians, Genoese and other Italian fleets.

[@帅的雅痞]

Well, I'm a Chinese and after this video, I can only say that the differences between Chinese data and info compare to the western is huge. And even our Chinese historian could not really give the specific info of Han dynasty, there are too many uncertainties. So why even bother to make this video?

[@DarkLordOfSweden]

Because people will always try to compare thing's, be it food, people or empires

[@FaithRox]

That's probably because they censor things so heavily in China while the "West" is quite a bit more open.

Everything is distorted in Chinese history to give the image that China was perfect and great until foreign people humiliated China with 100 years of shame and all was terrible until Mao came into power Does Chinese history talk much about the Ming invasions into Vietnam? Or Chinese paying off Mongolian warlords to fight each other then it all backfired when the mongol tribes United?

[@帅的雅痞]

vzdorr b I agree that most of Chinese historian talked more on the positive side of China than the negative, but I wouldn’t use the word “every” while saying the whole Chinese history is distorted.

[@帅的雅痞]

Faith Rox that’s pretty true, 30years ago you can barely see anything negative about the communist party and the Chinese government, the censor thingy had just getting a bit loose in recent years. But still is very strict

[@alph8964]

Basically which empire would win depends on where you are from

[@napalmblast6550]

No one would win if such a war had happened.

[@Deibi078]

Peru 🇵🇪

[@mingding7789]

The result is intuitive: the Han Dynasty destroyed the Xiongnu Empire, forcing half of them to move west, and one branch of them evolved into Huns after a few centuries, one of their leaders was called Attila

[@reaux1560]

Fight don't work like that always.

[@User50981]

exactly, China low diffs

[@buukute]

Huns / Han. Sound familiar isn't it? I'm not surprise the Roman thought the Han turn on them.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@User50981 Ancient China them selves said Rome was an equal Empire to their own

[@TheKunLaszlo]

Hello! With the highest respect to the Chinese warriors, they have no match against a Roman military powerhouse at that time. Yes, they have the advantage of cavalry, and the numerical in missile weaponry. But the Roman artillery units were at that time really punchy. So the scorpionii and the ballistae were effective especially in large number. These were used not just to kill enemies, but to spread fire and to brake moral. The wast advantage here is the huge distance of projectiles, and upon hit, no shield, no armor can protect against them. The Legionarii were not so vulnerable against arrows and bolts, and not just because of the scutums, but in case of need the Roman legion can swiftly change formation. The arrows are almost useless against testudo. The bolts are less usable, the early Chinese crossbows were weak and inaccurate. The self loading mode of the cho-ko-nu not helps against a shield wall and the iron plates of lorica segmentata. the auxilaria can harass the enemy cavalry, the long range artillery can provide cover, and the heavy infantry slowly, but surely mops up the enemy weak light infantry. Classic Roman strategy. There were a lot of examples in history, where a highly outnumbered Romans won battles against less professional, less disciplined enemies.

[@Intranetusa]

@Laszlo Szanyi, I copied my points and responded to your reply in the other comment chain. My original post is here under your comment. Let me know if you want me to repost here again as well.

[@TheKunLaszlo]

@@Intranetusa It would be good, if you can repost. I cannot see. I do not know why. I seen it partially, in the notification window only.

[@thewestisthebest6608]

Nobody: Russian Muppet: What if the Romans and the Chinese fought each other? But seriously thank you! I just binged watched all you videos and subscribed!

[@Dfathurr]

If army of Roman empire clash with army of Han dynasty It's like contested each mind into other culturally different with different views I mean, how random the result if (just example, although still a bit incorrect in timeline) If Scipio Africanus must face Zhuge Liang Or Julius Caesar must handle Cao Cao Or Claudius Drusus face one by one with Lu Bu Hard isn't it? As both of the opponent is brilliant in its way

[@nicoferino2592]

but Rome could still conquer china almost easily

[@marinuswillett6147]

A simple Rome vs. China war is implausible. A civil war within the Parthian Empire in which Rome and China ally with opposing factions is much more plausible. You should do a video on that

[@Dumb-Comment]

Han China have technological advantage but Rome have stronger soliders. Politically, Rome is unstable compared to the Chinese, with such a giant war going on, Roman population could mount a protest and demand for peace, the war could actually end with both side making trade instead.

[@Whowhatwhenwhereandhow]

Hạn Army is up to 1 million strong at it height. In 111 BC, they already sent 300K to 500K troop to Southern China to conquered the Baiyue (Aouthern China and Northern part of Vietnam). Chinese military strategies and so many wars since 700 BC til the unification of China from the first emperor in 200BC and then Han Dynasties with so many wars against the XongNu/Mongols/Huns. It’s the Han with it warfare technology and overwhelming with so many troops.

[@perotaccc8732]

An army of serfs has often been outnumbered by other barbarians throughout history

[@lsxu149]

@@perotaccc8732 idiot

[@SockAccount111]

Those numbers are as exaggerated as Herodotus saying the Persians had one million soldiers lmfao

[@TheArmenianHorseman]

Oh so a difference if about 400k+ more decade long veterans, standardized equipment and battle tactics that have been historically proven against swarm armies lose out to low powered crossbow (nothing like the crossbows 8 centuries later) massive unwieldy militia formations and no equipment standardization. Sounds legit #RomaInvicta

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

Hhh 60% of the Roman army were auxiliaries who are not standardized and dont have lotbof experience, Romans struggled against much weaker barbarians compared to the mighty Xiongnu the Chinese had to deal with, they even invaded them while Romans were camping at the Rhine lol And yes ranged unit advantage is enough to win you a battle, look at what the Parthians did to Legions with horse archers, what the english did to the french...and that without mentioning 250K cavalry who will Canae the shit out of the Roman army.

[@andreasholand9376]

@@TheTariqibnziyad After a bit of adaptation the Romans almost routinely mopped the floor with the Parthians, though.

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

@@andreasholand9376 it had to do more with poor leadership and internal politics, in this video we are giving both armies their best leaders

[@andreasholand9376]

@@TheTariqibnziyad I disagree. The first Parthian invasion of Rome was also thouroughly defeated when it was no longer Crassus meeting new tactics in new lands for the first time. If you are to choose Rome at it's best it is a Rome with experience at defeating competent armies of horse archers.

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

@@andreasholand9376 well actually they played the scorched earth tactic...and Romans were at their limit so they lost the war but never lost a battle at their peak, shows the limits of Rome's logistics.

[@leronbenari226]

I didn't know Roman Nationalists existed before I read the comments.

[@mattikul]

@Snek Supremacist no simply European, but Western Civilization

[@spacedoutorca4550]

It would have been more accurate to say Rome was under its height (both stability and territory wise) during the reign of either Trajan or Marcus Aurelius.

[@chairmanbowl4085]

I saw this video as purely entertainment and did not intend on commenting because the comment section is just fan boys circle jerking each other, but decided to comment after reading the comments. In the open field the Han will win. Here's what will happen, the Chinese cavalry will route the Roman cavalry. The legionary will be worn down by overwhelming crossbow fire and will resort to testudo. Testudo is weak against cavalry charges and the Han will charge the Roman lines and break their formation and the rest of the Roman army will route and get slaughtered. If the Romans want to win, they would have to fight in a terrain that limits the Han's ability to deploy cavalry and overwhelming numbers of crossbowmen. However in an actual war, both sides will not be able to conquer each other because the extreme landmass would result in a war of attrition until peace is negotiated because both sides are not equipped for a war of this magnitude.

[@kozakos1999]

I think the video is saying exactly this.

[@LTBLACKCOAT]

5:27 None y'all gonna talk about that Asterix and Obelix reference?

[@ilejovcevski79]

A great portion of the audience might too young or too fat culturally removed to understand it, LOL!

[@妙才-z6g]

I am Chinese, to be fair, Rome will suffer a disastrous defeat because we have iron smelting technology, crossbow machines, Sun Tzu's military strategy, and many, many armies

[@妙才-z6g]

By the way, according to records, the iron smelting technology of the Han Dynasty was already very mature at that time. It is not an exaggeration to say that Rome could not even defeat the Qin Dynasty

[@fegemarsilang5746]

Rome also has military strategy, arguably faced way more dangerous threats than the Han dynasty could, Parthians, and barbarian tribes up the north all around them attacking them often required a good army

[@Ns.Naruenat]

​@@fegemarsilang5746 What did Roman find? That's right, the Han Dynasty completely destroyed the Xiongnu Empire. The Xiongnu Empire was considered the largest empire and had the strongest army of its time, but it was completely destroyed by the Han Dynasty. Yes, Xiongnu was correct. I'm talking about the Huns. The barbarian tribes of the Roman north or will they fight against the Mongols, Turks, and Jurchens? The barbarians in northern China were much more dangerous. In the records of the Han Dynasty it is said that The Parthians had beautiful cities and civilization but a poor and weak army.

[@fegemarsilang5746]

@@Ns.Naruenat why u relying on Han dynasty lmfao, the parthians easily would've been a way bigger threat than these so called "dangerous" xiongnu, the parthians had way superior armor not to mention dangerous Cataphracts and horse archers, the sophistication of their military makes them a way bigger threat than the xiongnu would ever hope to be

[@Ns.Naruenat]

@@fegemarsilang5746 That shows that you are a person who failed the world history course. The Xiongnu had almost twice as many cavalry as the Parthians. The Xiongnu were born warriors. By that I mean every Xiongnu man was destined to be a warrior from birth. The Xiongnu were much more skilled at horse archery than the Parthians because horse archery was the Xiongnu's way of life. And besides, the Xiongnu only had cavalry. They wouldn't have any infantry at all if they didn't have to. The Xiongnu Empire had as many as 400,000 soldiers. That's right, those 400,000 soldiers were all cavalry and archers. And those 400,000 soldiers were not unskilled soldiers because most of them had already battled. There are always wars between the tribes.

[@hieronymus0315]

Liechtenstein vs Uzbekistan

[@fikistoraro5967]

phahahah

[@fegemarsilang5746]

Serbia vs Mongolia

[@alanfriesen9837]

Perhaps the only way the battle would have been possible would be through alliances. You could have a scenario where the Romans and the Persians had an alliance and the Chinese and the Bactrians had an alliance and the two forces each made up of two armies faced off somewhere in Transoxiana.

[@willscott1533]

Rome and Parthia were not friendly though, so China would really have to piss them off first.

[@doldemenshubarti8696]

Bactrians would add nothing to the Chinese force. China actually fought some Bactrian kingdom after crossing desert twice and basically deleted them Mongol style. If Bactrian kingdoms mean anything to Rome, Rome is in huge trouble

[@davidosullivan9817]

Are nukes allowed??

[@bruhlel6674]

david o sullivan 1,000 years ago Nukes are you joke to me

[@authenticnew]

No need for nukes，Lu Bu is enough

[@oceanphantom7477]

@@bruhlel6674 c'mon is a joke

[@Dou_Y]

naked is allowed

[@hannah.r6613]

yes

[@maninredhelm]

All it would take to defeat the Han army is a single roman soldier spamming the X button, at least until Lu Bu shows up.

[@Plyst3]

Dodge and then spam X. It takes a minute but he can die too.

[@yiyangqin4527]

what is that x button mean?

[@nuraby_9228]

@@yiyangqin4527 he talking about the video game franchise Dynasty Warriors, where you mash an attack button and just clear waves and waves of generic soldiers. It's an incredibly fun hack and slash game.

[@nuraby_9228]

Romans would learn the hard way not to pursue Lu Bu

[@ShieldAre]

Roman Empire wins, because their army at this time is simply far more experienced and consists of disciplined professonials. However, go forward a couple hundred years, and the Roman army will have destroyed itself fighting civil wars, and Han China will win by sheer numbers (assuming they stayed the same. They did collapse long before the Roman Empire did)

[@skuma7358]

who needs experienced soilders when u have farmers with crossbows and cannons and rockets

[@nolesquad5162]

Yup by a 1000 years!

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

China was not only fighting but invaded much more dangerous barbarians, no combat experence my ass

[@hwasiaqhan8923]

What do you mean more experienced? Han China defeated the most powerful nomadic empire “Xiongnu” which had a population of around 5 million, in their own lands, that’s both steppes and deserts. Han China conquered the snowy mountainous northern Korean Peninsula and jungles of Vietnam, they also conquered the kingdoms of Tarim basin(modern day Xinjiang). I say this is a lot of experience.

[@zeimarc752]

@@hwasiaqhan8923 Xiongnu? Most powerful nomadic empire? Good luck.

[@yoshilorak5897]

It has been proven time and again that armor doesn't slow people down. Especially roman armor which were made of steel and thus were thin and light, yet they were steel which were almost impossible to penetrate. It is the shield and the javelins that were slowing them down.

[@montezumasrache4090]

And if you get a few pila struck through your shield.

[@jeffro9489]

Rome and China were both highly innovative and had ordered military discipline. Nether side could beat Obelix's village.

[@b.w.22]

Uh, Caesar in the Gallic wars had something like six to ten legions at his command at any point. That’s like 75k soldiers, max, though there were auxiliaries. With them, he defeated something like three million Gauls. At Alesia alone, his 60k soldiers defeated 300k Gauls.

[@wabu7645]

He defeated a few hundred thousand warriors and the rest were innocent people

[@tisFrancesfault]

It's a shame the cultural Revolution destroyed much of Chinese historical records.

[@司马缸-z6j]

I don't know where you heard about it, but it didn't happen. Mao itself is what we called reading books man, which in ancient China represent the ruling class. What he destroyed is superstition. All the knowledge is well preserved and student is learning them as compulsory course in 1-9 grade.

[@DrSlay1313]

@@司马缸-z6j Good work here is your $0.50.

[@themetroidprime]

@@司马缸-z6j You don't remotely have the data and writings you had before the cultural revolution. It's not a mystery that we have much more data on the Roman Empire than on the Han, even though both Empires has quite a lot of literate people.

[@peiranzhang4283]

Ah, Mao burned down like village shrines, yeah so much historical records lost. Buddy, Chinese historical sites had military garrisons in the cultural revolution, placed there by Mao. In fact, go check out which country has the largest amount of historical heritage sites, spoilers alert it's China. Hey look, there isn't much historical records on Spartan military numbers, ah, it's the Spartan communist party isn't it? Hey look most records on Byzantium military numbers are destroyed, must be the Greek communist party! Hey look, the military records on precise English military numbers don't exist, must be the the English communists. Considering there is the three kingdoms period right after the Han, and then 5 barbarian invasions 200 years later, then in the future, like 20 more civil wars and 4 large barbarian invasions in two thousand years. Blaming the shit on Mao is fucking retarded.

[@司马缸-z6j]

@@nawtilismaelis2043 Wow, I am shocked. When does the world granted the power to you to represent the entire world?i guess you named yourself the commender of the world.t

[@doormanfoc]

No, Chinese empire at that time was no where organized enough to take on the Romans. Chinese during that time period did not fight in proper formations and even winning Chinese armies would often have to hunt down hundreds of their own soldiers that fled the field before the conclusion. Further more, while some of their soldiers were properly armed, these were those among a vary few in the wealthier caste. The bulk of Chinese soldiers were just given a make-shift axe-dagger spears and no combat training before joining their army units. Chinese did not use horseback in a matter that would make them effective against heavy infantry and a smaller unit of Roman cavalry in charging formation would have swiftly kill the scatter Chinese horsemen while the Roman foot soldiers have large shields and formations to make them basic immune to such shatter fired arrow tactics. This fight would have been the same as a disorganized mob charging into a line of spears, the Romans would slaughter one tenth of the Chinese army before they fled in all directions and, assuming they survived, the Chinese generals will only be able to regroup portions of their army a few times before none are willing to continue fighting.

[@genericname5909]

PRC be like well yes but actually no

[@mikenicolas671]

In the era of cold weapons, China experienced countless empires. Each of China's Empires was overthrown because of civil strife, and has never been overthrown by the empires of the West and the Middle East. In recent hundreds of years, western industrial civilization has developed science and technology, dominated the world and had more say. Please don't look at ancient things with modern eyes. Many empires in history have perished, and China is still here today!

[@jorehir]

Rome is still here as well, boy.

[@山青文]

@Hush Hush Yuan Shikai is a Chinese. The Japanese invasion of China only occupied a part of it, and most of China's land still belongs to the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang. And although the Qing Dynasty was established by the Manchus, almost all the Manchus died when Emperor Qianlong fought the Mongols. The remaining Manchu women all married Chinese men, so the Manchus now look exactly the same as the Chinese.

[@jorehir]

@@山青文 The Japanese occupied the most valuable part of China though. I didn't check, but i bet that most of the Chinese population fell under the Japanese, as well as most factories and large cities. China also fell to the Mongols. That means that the only 2 major powers that arose in East Asia both managed to conquer China. Aside from those events, China was lucky to be pretty much geographically isolated from the rest of the world, ensuring its homogeneity and continuity.

[@426mak]

@@jorehir Then by your definition Nazi Germany also 'conquered' Stalin Russia. You also forget that Japan had committed more 75% of the total force in China during WW2 and were critically overstretched. They were desperate to end the war knowing that there was no way for them to hold there gains in a prolonged war. Only "2 major powers" boy do you need to do more research. There was the Xiongnu in the era of the Han Dynasty who had the largest land Empire of the time. They were defeated and vassalized by the Han Dynasty. The Tibetan Empire of the 600-800 AD, who eventually became a tributary to Tang Dynasty. There was the mighty Lao and Jin both of whom had empires comparable to any powers in Europe at the time and the Song Dynasty outlasted them both. Japan was defeat twice in Korea during the Tang & Ming Dynasties and became a tribute state to China until the twilight years of the Qing Dynasty. Finally the Mongol also swept through the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Northern India. China held out for three generations against them, while western Europe was only saved by their distance to the Mongol.

[@jorehir]

@@426mak - Nazi Germany got in control of the most valuable part of the USSR but, only 6 months after the beginning of the invasion, the Soviets started to push back, completely repelling the Germans and even invading Berlin. - The most valuable parts of China stayed under Japanese occupation for like 8 years (Manchuria for like 14 years). This occupation finally ended solely thanks to the American intervention. If you don't see differences in these situations, i don't know what to say anymore... Xiongnu "empire"? They were nomadic tribes who used to graze in the steppes and occasionally raid Chinese towns. As dangerous as they were, we're still talking about less than 2 million shepherds VS an advanced empire of 65 million people. Their territories were large because they were empty wastelands. Same goes for the other example you brought. To know what a major power is, you should look at Carthage, at the Hellenistic Kingdoms, at Parthia, at the Islamic Caliphates, etc. Japan's defeats by China happened before Japan became a power. Why are you mentioning that? Are you proud that big China won against small Japan? The Mongols never conquered any major European power, despite the fact that Europe wasn't familiar with their fighting style. They also never caught India.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

I'm watching this while playing Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

My money is on Rome, China's cavalry were excellent quality, but Roman infantry were arguably the best in the world better than Chinese troops, and what made them so good was that they could even adapt to cavalry warfare, as was shown when Trajan absolutely dominated the Parthians in the middle east. The Romans also dismantled a more diverse range of strong enemies compared to the Chinese who were mostly fighting amongst themselves in civil wars. Rome neutralised the Carthaginians under Hannibal, the Greeks, Spartans, the Seleucid Empire, the Gauls and Vercingetorix, the Kingdom of Pontus, Atilla and the Huns etc I think the Romans would edge it. Better trained and more combat experienced.

[@landsknecht8654]

You said it.

[@calisthenicsnoob9990]

Nah C Han dynasty would won anytime, Han armor was better, their military had standardized weapon, system, training, organization. Roman army mostly does not have good weapons. Han also had record of going to war with large armies of over 100 thousand, while Roman usually only thousands to 10s of thousands.

[@deliverant9375]

@@calisthenicsnoob9990 Numbers are not everything. Roman legions have fought and won against enemy armies that are 10x their size. The Romans have defeated the impenetrable phalanx, and endless massive hordes of celts.

[@calisthenicsnoob9990]

@@deliverant9375 of 10x of untrained farmers means nothing, but 10x trained well equiped soldiers, Roman's would be pulverized. You know there is a reason why Chinese civilization started in the far east of Asia but its boarders stretched to the easter part of central asia, its expansion was only stopped due to natural barriers such as Himalayas and Gobie desert.

[@calisthenicsnoob9990]

@@deliverant9375 ancient Chinese power is not well known in the west but if you just think about it, you would understand, such as the modern discussion on calling chinese new year vs lunar new year, why does southeast Asian and all east Asian celebrate it? Or why do Korean and Japanese use Kanji and Hanja aka Hanzi or translated to the Language of Han (ie: Han dynasty)? Bc ancient China's power extended as far as it could with Ancient technologies, all of east and southeast Asia, plus central Asia at the borders of extreme natural barriers. Also as far north as Siberia (ever wonder why all Siberia tiger are in China?)

[@ShaaarpieTheInhaled]

But what about air power?

[@ShaaarpieTheInhaled]

Ah, thanks for the info.

[@PeptoBismarck244]

Don’t forget about the Chinese Kung fu air brigades

[@vitorleite3095]

Don't forget that the Romans also sacked from Parthia some Sumerians space/alien ships(like the one Gilgamesh is riding in fate zero).

[@darryljones3009]

Eagles vs dragons.

[@finback2005]

wow. lol.

[@antoniototaro5880]

It would have been 100% stalemate. These empire had both strengths and weaknesses. Additionally any realistic scenario would be wrong because there are several factors that must be considered.

[@ffakerr8159]

The fact: Han Empire defeated the Huns and the Western part of Huns escaped to the central Asia, then the Roman empire was almost crushed by Attila, decendent of Western Huns. The history already gave the answer. Here are two statement from World History Encyclopedia if you reference that as neutral : "From 127 BC to 119 BC during the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, the famous generals Wei Qing and Huo Qubing launched three large-scale attacks against the Huns, also known as Xiongnu who disturbed the northern border of the Han Dynasty frequently, and finally expelled them far northwest of the Great Wall." "The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (also known as The Battle of Chalons, The Battle of Maurica) was one of the most decisive military engagements in history between the forces of the Roman Empire under Flavius Aetius (391-454 CE) and those of Attila the Hun (r. 434-453 CE)." ''The Huns were nomads of an unknown origin, though most likely out of Mongolia. There was the Xiongnu Empire of local nomadic tribes between 209 BC and 93 AD. It was defeated by the Chinese eventually and fell apart. By the way, the Great Wall was constructed to defend against these nomads.'' But lastly I won't say this fact matters so much as Chinese has long time battle with huns before Han Dynasty, that is the reason why Chinese built the great wall and always seeked for a united centralized government throughout the history (plus there are lots of natural disasters like earthquake, the drought, Yellow river and Yangtze river always got flood, sort of thins). Therefore, it is geo-political condition that makes Chinese agriculture civilization become like a civilized defensive state unlike national states in west. While in Europe, the land is wide and resource is rich, they had better agriculture civilisation base than Han. Besides, their geo-political enemies are more 'polite' compared to Chinese bad surroundings, thus less collectivism but more individualism in Roman Empire. (refer to landlord and knight relationship model sort of things compared to Chinese general office under vertical management) Roman empire had never met those crazy nomadic as enemies before, so it is quite an ''accident event'' for Romans to meet huns. It definetly no answer for who would win. However, Roman left more heritage in world than Han Empire, as its architecture is made from stone for both residence and military infrastructure. while Han left more literature treasure as they got paper and printing technology, but eastern Asian residence architecture mostly made from wood were destroyed finally. Btw why Romans look like black hair with black eyes.

[@bitcoinzoomer9994]

Europeans have always had a warrior culture, their infighting and competition is the reason their armies and cultures have come to dominate, and the disillusion of said warrior culture is what has made them stagnate, same as the late roman empire. If the Chinese army had to face off against the early empire's legions, they would have been crushed. Rome collapsed as they had no real enemies to fight for a long time, and they had all the resources they needed. This caused degeneracy and complacency, and the roman armies slowly degenerated to majority non-roman. That is why Rome collapsed, degeneracy and complacency coming from a surplus of resources and general lack of outside threats. This is what China has been for most of history. No threats, no lack of resources, no need for a highly skilled efficient army. The Chinese would have lost against Rome.

[@ffakerr8159]

@@bitcoinzoomer9994 Lol...You barely had no knowledge of history by saying that China had no treats, no lack of resources in history sort of things.Have you heard of great wall? what kind of situation will one civilisation decide to build a wall for 5000km+ length for continually 2000 years? I suggest you should think before talk. Both Rome Empire and Han Dynasty had warrior culture, so that does not mean anything without tactical consideration. Emperor Wu of Han literature mean martial emperor, who suggest his citizens to train martial art. I should give up debating with you cause you don't have basic information about the other side of Eurasia continent and just imagine or prejudge by yourself. Rome is a great empire of course, so did Chinese dynasty, so I did not say any conclusion:)

[@ImATiger-ci5ru]

“Why romans look like black hair with black eyes” you mean white people only have blond and blue eye? Stupid

[@shuipingmo5114]

@@ImATiger-ci5ru for me, Rome is more likely Mediterranean, not European

[@eyyze]

Ah yes, because Huns from 2nd century are obviously the same as the Huns from the 5th century and obviously 4-5th century Rome is the same as 1st - 2nd century one. This argument is so flawed and stupid dude. Not to mention, Rome WAS battling several opponents at the time Huns arrived, so saying their war against Attila is comparable to Han's war against the Huns is also incredibely dumb. Overall your argument is just idiotic on many layers of it, the examples you provided in no way explain why Rome at its peak would lose.

[@ihatecow1106]

Creator: who will be better roman or chinese ? In that year roman and chinese: hi east👋 , hi west 👋

[@Earth1942050]

But Binkov, China's commander normally don't fight head to head with the strong enemy and China had already developed a relatively better strategy system (The strategy in "The Art of War" written by Sun Tzu are well known in Han dynasty. And Chinese commander at that time tends to use fire, ambush, flood...... in the battle. Actually in "The Art of War" Sun Tzu uses a whole chapter to discuss how to properly burn your enemy and what should you do when your enemy is on fire. ) Roman soldier are more experience than China conscripts, but China's commander are more tricky than Roman general.

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

To be fair De Re Militari is basically the roman 'Art of war.'

[@Earth1942050]

@@AlexC-ou4ju correct me if I am wrong(I'm not very familiar with the Roman history) , but that book didn't exist until 4th centery right? But art of the war has already been written long ago and through so many year, it become a Bible (or a common sense )for aecient China commander and stuff officer . And art of war isn't the only book about war strategy at Han dynasty. That's why I think China has developed a relatively better strategy system or theory (I am not sure whether it is a right word to describe it, sorry for my poor English )

[@rgtaerghaerthaerghaerghad7854]

The idea that Han china somehow has a better grasp of strategy than fucking Rome of all places is baffling.

[@hiukas.]

Chinese horses were weaker and smaller than Western horses. We know that because of the war of the heavenly horses.thus a cavalry charge from the Chinese wouldn't be as effective also Roman legionaries have proven that they could take cavalry charges to the face and not be much effected like in the invasion of Britain by Caesar.

[@nodosa994]

Hiukas The setting this scenario is in is durring 210 A.D so by then, the Han would already have strong horses thanks to the mounts of the Ferghana valley. Still, Rome did have heavier horses, but not better ones.

[@hiukas.]

@@nodosa994 heavier = better in cavalry charge terms The heavier the horse the largest the impact force

[@peiranzhang4283]

Han China invaded Ferghana valley, which had horses that is a mix of Macedonian thesslian horses and strong horses of the steppe, considering the place was occupied by the Bactrian kingdom, so I don't know why you think Chinese armies use Chinese horses. The Han created insane pastures for military use, in the pacified steppe. Chinese horses are for farms and pets.

[@hiukas.]

@@peiranzhang4283The Chinese army used Chinese horses because transporting 200.000 horses (size of Han cavalry) through a continent is difficult at best. Plus for most of the time China didn't even know these horses existed. Even today Chinese horses are different.

[@peiranzhang4283]

@@hiukas. For transport because they are cheap, not used for combat because they are timid as hell and are slow and weak. Actually for most of China's history they are used for military uses, hence the unique distinction between "army horse" and horse throughout China's history.

[@eldridso2323]

I think Han's army is not lack of experience, as being a Chinese, I studied Chinese history, Han Wu emperor and the emperors in the first decades of Han dynasty , they always summon army to fight against the Xiongnu (similar to the ancestors of Mongolians), and the Han army has a lot experience in battling and combating, so the video is not quite accurate in saying Han army has not experience. Also, Han army was advanced that time, they have superior shields, battle rams, and ancient strategies whereas Roman empire does not really understand. Roman empire has a lot troops from the slaves which could be disloyal and rebellious during the war of Roman and Han. Moreover, many of the central Asia empires have been obeying to Han dynasty at that time and they could be one of the troops to support Han dynasty if Roman empire needs to fight with Han dynasty. Furthermore, Han army has more troops, which means they could have more flexibility in implementing different kinds of wise-ancient war tactics. So in overall, Han dynasty should have won the war eventually.

[@TheCJUN]

Roma Invicta

[@mikedi7850]

Legio Aeterna

[@GavinTheFifer]

I feel like every history video I click on now is sponsored by Total War

[@tuvidao2011]

Around this time, the Han Dynasty was not born, because the Qin Dynasty had not yet collapsed, Qin Shi Huang still held the position of Emperor to rule China. Qin Shi Huang died in 210 AD according to historical records, the Qin dynasty collapsed in 206 AD, which means, if an "imaginary" war broke out with the Roman empire at this past time, then The Roman Empire was forced to fight a large army of skilled soldiers of the Qin Dynasty. The characteristic of the Qin army is that it is a force that is trained with strict discipline, most of which are conscripts who receive military training from the locality and improve their training level. In order for the Roman Empire and the Qin Dynasty to be able to go to war, there would have to be an assumption of territorial expansion, for example, that Rome needed to expand to the East, ready to destroy the Persian Empire as well as other countries. small states of Central Asia (as they traveled from the eastern part of the empire, in present-day Turkey). And the Qin also turned their territorial ambitions to the West, when they needed to pursue nomadic tribes like the Hunz that threatened them. The battlefields where Rome and Qin could clash is the Uyghuyr Empire located on the territory of present-day Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.

[@mrtheholynoob]

Zheng died in 210 BC not AD, so it was the Han dynasty when Rome was at its largest

[@y.r._]

Love it when an absolute history illiterate is trying to sound smart, yet isn't even able to distinguish AD from BC. The Qin collapsed in the late third century BEFORE CHRIST. Around the time of the punic wars. And to think that you whole argumentation is about such a blatant mistake...

[@kishibenoa3346]

you can't distinguish between BC and AD or something? try to read again or just use google takes less than 5 seconds

[@山青文]

Many American and European friends mistakenly believe that Mongolians are aliens and invincible in the five thousand years of world history because they have watched too many historical films.

[@山青文]

Below I will use the simplest explanation to prove that the Mongols are not aliens: First, in the 5,000-year history of the world, there are many Asian nation-state armies that can defeat European countries and colonize Europeans. Asian nations that colonized Europeans in real history: The ancient Persians invaded the Balkans. After the Northern Huns were defeated by the Han Dynasty, they went to Europe to establish the Huns Empire. The Avars colonized Central Europe and invaded the Eastern Roman and Frankish kingdoms. The Bulgars successively invaded Eastern Rome and colonized the Balkans. After the Turks were defeated by the Tang Dynasty, the Seljuks led an army to defeat the Eastern Romans and occupied Asia Minor. The Magyars colonized Central Europe and the Balkans. The Kipchaks colonized Ukraine. The Finns invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus. The Ottomans conquered Eastern Rome and Hungary, and colonized Asia Minor, the Balkans and Central Europe. The Arabs conquered Spain and Italy.

[@山青文]

Second, other superpowers that can conquer Europe, but do not want to conquer Europe. Instead, they frequently invaded China and the Iranian plateau. Such as: Han Dynasty, Xiongnu, Rouran, Turkic, Tang Dynasty, Khitan, Ming Dynasty, Seljuk Empire, Timur Empire. Main reasons: First, Europe was poor most of the time, and the nomadic civilization had no barns to loot. Conversely, China has been an agricultural civilization with a large number of granaries from 5,000 years ago, and all nomadic empires would want to rob China. Second, Europe is not the trade center of the land silk road and the sea silk road, so it is impossible to earn high tolls, and it is even more impossible to establish a monopoly trade between the East and the West. Conversely, occupying Xinjiang, Central Asia and the Iranian plateau can completely control the land Silk Road; occupying Egypt, Yemen, Persian Gulf, southern India and Sri Lanka can completely control the Maritime Silk Road. So who would want to occupy Europe? For Asian powers, Europe's most valuable trade traffic locations are in the Balkans, Ukraine and the Gulf of Finland. Therefore, whether it is the ancient Persians, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Finns, Oguss, Mongolians, Ottomans, will have a strong interest in the Ukrainian Balkans and the Gulf of Finland.

[@山青文]

Third, the timing of the Mongol conquests of Asia and Europe is great. Before the Tang and Song dynasties, the Chinese hadn't invented a lot of gunpowder weapons. China and the countries around China are the most powerful cold weapon military civilization in the world. The places with the strongest ironmaking technology and the largest number of arsenals are all in China. Huns, Rourans, Turks were all powerful in this era, so they did not have gunpowder weapons to quickly defeat the enemy's army and destroy the enemy's walls and castles. So the time and cost of the war are much greater than the Mongols. But when the Mongols rose, the entire Central Asia, Middle East, Europe, South Asia and Africa would not use gunpowder. Therefore, the time and cost of the Mongolians' westward expedition can be greatly reduced.

[@山青文]

Fourth, the timing of the Mongols' rise was great: the early thirteenth century saw constant domestic struggles in both the Jin and Song dynasties. The Song Dynasty wanted to destroy the Jin Dynasty but could not do it, so it exported military technology and consultants to Genghis Khan's grandfather and father to ask the Mongols to destroy the Jin Dynasty, but after the Jin Dynasty was destroyed, the Song Dynasty was also destroyed. But because the Jin and Song dynasties had large armies and gunpowder weapons, it took the Mongols nearly a hundred years to successfully occupy China. In the thirteenth century, the whole of Central Asia and the Middle East was occupied by the Khwarazmian Empire, but the Khwarazmian nobles and the Khanli military generals caused serious struggles in the country during the Mongol invasion. So the Mongolian army defeated Khwarizmo's army in one fell swoop. And destroyed the walls and castles of Central Asia and the Middle East with a large number of artillery.

[@山青文]

Fifth, the failure of a large number of military operations in the early days of the Mongol Empire proved that the military discipline and strategy of the Mongols were not strong: The Mamluk Sultanate defeated the Mongols twice in a row and protected Egypt and Syria. The Mongols invaded Korea nine times, and it took fifty years of war with the Koreans to conquer Korea. The Mongols invaded Vietnam three times and failed. The Mongols led a large number of South Korean navies to invade Japan twice, but both suffered heavy losses. The Mongol invasion of Indonesia was a tragic failure.

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

You forgot the invention Romans used against enemy Cavalry troops. The were called "Krähenfüße" - Latine "Tribuli" - Eng. "Caltrop(s)"

[@Drownedinblood]

so death by arrows it is.

[@jorehir]

@@Drownedinblood Arrows don't penetrate Shield + Lorica Segmentata.

[@Drownedinblood]

@@jorehir so what killed legionnaires at carrhae?

[@nurettinburakcevikparmak6298]

@Cafelogis the open parts of the armor that allowed legionnaires to move swiftly despite being heavy infantry?

[@罗伊德-f9r]

The military peak of Han dynasty is Han WuDi, not CaoCao who is only a prince.

[@krimozaki9494]

The Roman army is mostly infantry, half of them were professional heavy infantry, as for the Han infantry, they were less armored and less trained, but they have more missile units than the Romans, also, the Han had far more cavalry than the Romans and a large percentage of these cavalry were mounted archers , so I think in an open terrain the Han will have the advantage but in a closed terrain the Romans will have the advantage

[@destructo_mamba_embergb]

The Han Chinese army were greatly trained also. There was 150,000 semi trained soldiers comparable to the whole Roman army, which the Han dynasty also had 700,000 normal soldiers . They had to run over great distances every day, practised using spear, swords, Ji halberds. The had tough lamellar armour, same protectiveness as Roman armour. They serve red in the frontiers and also had ton of experience.

[@krimozaki9494]

this trained troups were mostly cavalry @@destructo_mamba_embergb

[@destructo_mamba_embergb]

regular soldiers were trained also. How would they fight if they didn’t train?@@krimozaki9494

[@tercomada]

​@@destructo_mamba_embergbquien gano más guerras? Hay está la repuesta

[@bulgar.slayer]

​@@destructo_mamba_embergbThat's nice! Now jusfify it..

[@ac1455]

that would depend on the time period of the Han dynasty and the Roman Empire. In their earlier years, both empires would be politically strong and then weaken as power disperses to individual provinces. The Han had to deal with peasant revolts and court intrigue and the Romans had to deal with slave revolts and their senate rivalries. The Han would have a cohesion factor less likely to have provinces rebel while the romans would have a logistic factor with the Mediterranean. Given a year to prepare, the Han and Romans would be able to equip themselves at similar levels contrary to popular belief, as records show Han armory inventories sufficient for a few hundred thousand men. The likely reason the Han kept only 80-160k professionals at a time was because they didn’t need to given their neighbors were nomads and nanmen whereas the Romans bordered Persian empires. If you think about it, a lot of Rome’s instability came down to having to pay enormous sums and conquer land for hundreds of thousands of leggionaires and not being able to deliver on those promises. So, if you were hypothetically managing the Han economy, WHY would you spend huge sums on professionally training 300k+ men when your neighbors are loose barbarian confederacies with little natural resources and hostile climates only to cause a revolt because the government decided it needed to tax peasants harder to maintain that force that some upstart general will use to overthrow you.

[@henrybatten3315]

9:00 you didn't mention roman ballistae, you just mentioned the scorpions. Also we don't know exactly how many siege engines a roman legion had. So if the romans brought their entire army all 33 legions and we assume that on average each legion had at minimum 1 ballistae then that's 33 ballistae at minimum which due to range would give the romans the initial edge in missile fighting. Additionally given the romans experience in constructing marching camps a roman army could most likely deploy additional defensive fortifications against the han army further mitigating the advantage of the han crossbows.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Ballistae rate of fire is too slow. The larger size also means its much harder to hit anything but large infantry formations. Cavalry would be a no-go. Besides the Chinese also had something similar known as acruballistae. A later period ancient Chinese source gives it about 525m range. Roman Ballistae were 460m. These are extreme ranges, usually they would be used much closer. In practical combat, they both likely had very similar range and so neither had a real advantage. I cannot verify the capabilities of the Han Chinese acruballistae. The source describe it as capable of destroyer ramparts and towers, but that seems like a exaggeration. Such damage is usually caused by siege engines and not field artillery such as ballistae/acruballistae. But Similarly, we don't know the exact capabilities of Roman ballistae either. Both will most definitely go through shield and body armor. But no idea if it can go through field fortifications.

[@elchudcampeador5642]

@@neurofiedyamato8763 Roman ballistae had over 700 metres range. Hell, nick watts' firefly ballista even gets up to 900 metres plus

[@doldemenshubarti8696]

@@elchudcampeador5642 Chinese had traction trebuchet. The first of its kind. It would then be developed into counterweight trebuchet and be used often in siege warfare in medieval Europe. Chinese also built star fort type fortresses early on because of their advanced siege machines and actual cannons, which would also be further refined as the tech leaked towards the West

[@elchudcampeador5642]

@@doldemenshubarti8696 Traction trebuchets are fairly weak contraptions which need large crews of dozens of men to achieve ranges of 100-200 metres tops, save rare cases. It is easier to assemble and transport but that is about it, in range and accuracy it gets completely outmatched by torsion artillery or even large fixed triple bows that the chinese also used As for cannons, that is not really tangential to a discussion about the Han empire

[@doldemenshubarti8696]

@@elchudcampeador5642 it isnt range that makes trebuchet relevant, but what it throws. it regularly threw 400+ lb projectile very quickly. and while they didnt have gun powder, they did in fact make proto-gun powder and had saltpeter production sites which they would hurl using said trebuchets or use disposable bamboo devices by infantry or used as crude grenades

[@Trubripes]

IMHO non-industrialized armies don't operate well outside of their native terrain. Their equipment and tactics may work well where they were raised, but outside that area, they need an overwhelming advantage in number.

[@shadowdeslaar]

Trubripes the romans were very successful with just short swords outside of their territory

[@shadowdeslaar]

Not just short swords but compared to their enemy it’s more impressive

[@AlanoMarc]

Comparing the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty in terms of who would win in a hypothetical war is a fascinating and complex question. Both empires were powerful and had distinct strengths during their peak periods. Here's a comparison based on various factors: Military Strength Roman Empire: Professional and disciplined army with advanced military tactics and engineering skills. Well-organized legions and use of heavy infantry. Extensive experience in siege warfare and fortification construction. Han Dynasty: Strong cavalry, especially in the northern regions. Use of crossbows, which were more advanced than Roman bows. Large numbers of conscripted soldiers for large-scale battles. Technology and Engineering Roman Empire: Superior engineering and construction capabilities (e.g., roads, aqueducts, fortifications). Advanced siege machinery and techniques. Han Dynasty: Significant advancements in metallurgy, particularly in iron and steel production. Inventions like the wheelbarrow and improvements in shipbuilding. Economic and Logistical Support Roman Empire: Extensive network of roads facilitating rapid troop movements. A well-developed system of taxation and trade. Han Dynasty: Efficient bureaucratic system supporting large-scale resource mobilization. Control over the Silk Road, boosting economic strength. Geographic Considerations Roman Empire: Spanned across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Varied climates and terrains influencing military campaigns. Han Dynasty: Dominated East Asia, with control over diverse regions from the central plains to the steppes. Geographic barriers such as mountains and deserts providing natural defense. Cultural and Political Factors Roman Empire: Strong emphasis on civic duty and loyalty to the state. Political stability often disrupted by internal power struggles and civil wars. Han Dynasty: Confucian values emphasizing hierarchy and stability. Occasional periods of internal strife, but generally stable governance. Conclusion In a direct confrontation, the outcome would depend on numerous variables, including the location of the conflict, the specific time periods being compared, and the strategic decisions made by their respective leaders. Both empires had their unique advantages and challenges, making it difficult to predict a clear winner. It is likely that a prolonged conflict would drain resources on both sides, potentially leading to a stalemate or mutual decline.

[@RojoRed-ji3yw]

ChatGPT:

[@AlanoMarc]

@@RojoRed-ji3yw google

[@alexiosviapokios3057]

*ships casually sail right through suez almost 2000 years before the canal wass built*

[@lordblazer]

Romans would've built it if they needed it for a military campaign... that's the scary part of that empire. When they wanted to conquer something they'll do what is needed.

[@sinoroman]

Romans would have built a cannon if they needed it for a military campaign... that's the scary part of that empire. When they wanted to conquer something they'll do what is needed. Romans would have built a battleship if they needed it for a military campaign... that's the scary part of that empire. When they wanted to conquer something they'll do what is needed. Romans would have built a satellite if they needed it for a military campaign... that's the scary part of that empire. When they wanted to conquer something they'll do what is needed.

[@player276]

I feel like the video is a bit poorly researched. Despite what is commonly seen, Romans did just fine against Archer/Hourse-Archer based armies. A correct use of combined arms would stop all of these. They won some, they lost some. Secondly, the Chinease cavalry were not NOT heavy. Them charging disciplined troops would get them killed. Light/Medium Cavalry cant break up heavy infantry formations. Sure these tactics worked in China where troops were not as armored and disciplined, but in the Roman empire things were different. The Romans didnt use lots of cavalry because they didnt see much need in it. It wasn't very effective in wars, and even less so in civil wars.

[@Intranetusa]

I think you also need to do some research because your claims are also pretty inaccurate. First, the Romans did not do "fine" against archer/horse archer armies and had to change their armies and tactics to fight them. Crassus and Marc Antony's invasion of Parthia both failed. Trajan had some successes by capitalizing on Parthian internal division and besieging their cities by invading with a fleet on the rivers, but he couldn't permanently defeat the Parthians and Hadrian had to give up much of the indefensible territories for a peace treaty. The Romans by the 4th-5th century had to reform their Eastern Roman armies to include a more balanced army of more cavalry, more ranged troops, and more polearms - making it much less heavy infantry oriented. Even then, the Romans still fought the Sassanians to a draw for centuries. Second, the Han Chinese did have heavy cavalry. There are plenty of records and evidence of at least armored cavalry with at least partially armored horses equipped with long lances at this time. Records of the Three Kingdoms have plenty of references to battles with cavalrymen on "armored" horses. Gongsun Zan's elite hybrid cavalry was known for charging dense shielded infantry formations head-on. Third, heavy infantry in ancient China were just as well armored as Roman infantry equipped with the hamata, segmentata, squamata, etc. Look at this examples of lamellar armor with armored collars, armored sleeves (protecting the armpits and upper arms), and some armors that goes down to the thigh. us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/a0/435hzh0mtdc5.jpg qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b34f378219542ca5afb44258d2cb9a55 qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-89631b30c91dbb5cbce088008a5e0cb5 qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2d7b808a18a46f9bf7b8385e8071a3dc qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-56e4c27c6d878de1645c03bdfcd199df qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-096dced1d689f232be9c38d8bbdde65d qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7e258e60511e82d9d9ca7e40afbfd430 Finally, the Romans DID start adopting more cavalry in the late classical era because their infantry-oriented army was ineffective in fighting the new types of enemies they faced. They were no longer fighting hordes of undisciplined barbarians in pitched field battles, but their main enemy became smaller groups of barbarians, armies influenced by steppe tribes, and cavalry-heavy Persian armies of the Sassanians.

Who would win? Largest empire in Asia? A few cheeky red coats with some opium