NationStates Jolt Archive

Which will it be? Assume they fought each other, both at the height of their power, and be willing to both fight to the death.

Roman Empire, unequivocally so, it was simply more martially oriented, and more inclined towards decisive and assertive action.

I will confess to utter ignorance as to the Qin empire however.

Qin Dynasty is basically militarically ancient China. It was during the beginning of the Qin Dynasty the Great Wall was constructed.

I'm going to have to go with Rome just on the basis of how quickly they addapt new armor/weapons/strategies and annex good ideas from all civilizations they came across.

Lacking a joke option (Melkor could take 'em both) I will have to say Qin dynasty, because they were more stable and didn't rely so heavily on mercenary auxilliaries.

The Qin, ancient China was more advanced than their western friends, even before the Dark Ages nearly destroyed Europe.

I guess it sums down to either:

Crossbows vs Greek Fire

I'll say the Qin Dynasty, because a) there were more of them and b) they were more technologically advanced, although you're right HMW -- Melkor could take them on successfully. Both ICly and OOCly. ;P

Naval or Land warfare? Romans in naval maybe, but the Qin in land.... maybe

I suppose the Chu-Kho-Nu (the machine gun of the crossbow variety) who'd have devasted the massed Roman infantry- shields wouldn't have withstood that much damage i'd imagine.

Chinese had gunpowder- would have spooked the Romans badly.

Its a toughie.

They are both fairly similiar in way, as they both excel at destroying undisciplined forces and tend to resort to technology and strategy than sheer forces or strength.

I say Romans cos they unleash the Briton on the Chinese after they terll the Britons that Boadica was just a puff in drag it ends after the Chinese get freaked out as they loads of bollock naked soldiers runs down throwing lime covered heads at them

I like Rome. They have good sandwhiches.

I say Romans cos they unleash the Briton on the Chinese after they terll the Britons that Boadica was just a puff in drag it ends after the Chinese get freaked out as they loads of bollock naked soldiers runs down throwing lime covered heads at them

Oh my! How would that work?

I recently watched a documentary on TV about recent discoveries about Roman artifacts that we found.
They took a lot of Greek knowledge and turned it into real-world weaponry. Moreso than we expected, those guys had cool gadgets.

I reckon Rome would pwn Qin, except that Qin would probably have more people numerically.

Oh my! How would that work?
*shudders*

I do not need that image before I go to sleep.....:eek:

I vote for Qin:

-around 600 BC, 'the art of war' was written. The chinese knew how to go to war.
-Sun Tzu said: 'In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers ... Such is the cost of raising an army of 100 ,000 men.' the numbers he uses tell you that a single regular chinese army was probably at least twice as large as the entire roman army (10 legions? in total 60 000 men plus non-romans). And i suppose those chariots would hurt too :)
-china was rather advanced at the time rome was formed ...

I chose Qin for two reasons.

1. Numerical superiority - BIG advantage, even in those times. The Romans might have had tactics and discipline, but so did the Qin, and the numerical advantage is going to be a serious problem for the Romans to overcome.

2. Ease of invasion - Rome could be easily invaded from almost any direction, should enough force be gathered. China, on the other hand, was surrounded by jungles, mountains and deserts. The only real easy path into China was the one they had already been defending for centuries, so if one were to try to invade the other, in either instance I think Rome would have a much tougher time of it.

I'm going with the Romans at the height of their power. Marcus Aurelius would've adapted to anything the Qin Chinese threw at them. He wasn't the stubborn "Legions are the best" person that a good portion of the Roman emperors were (he was a cavalryman before he became emperor). He knew how to get things done.

I vote for Qin:

-around 600 BC, 'the art of war' was written. The chinese knew how to go to war.
-Sun Tzu said: 'In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers ... Such is the cost of raising an army of 100 ,000 men.' the numbers he uses tell you that a single regular chinese army was probably at least twice as large as the entire roman army (10 legions? in total 60 000 men plus non-romans). And i suppose those chariots would hurt too :)
-china was rather advanced at the time rome was formed ...

What, are you talking about early Roman Legions? I always heard they numbered over 100,000...

I went with Rome, mainly due that I really hope we (the West) could win.

It would be really close...could third parties be involved, like, I dunno, barbarians or rebels? I think Rome would be beaten if they actually fought. Mainly due to horde upon horde of Manchu men beating down upon them. But supporting such a large army for the Chinese would have some costly effect on order, moral, being fed, and equipment. It may have been massive swaths of men, but were all equally equiped? Was their equipment standard issue by the state, or did they arm themselves?

I am ignorant of China's history....

I read somewhere once that on the Ancient Spice road between China and Rome, there was a little skirmish between Roman's and Qin soldiers...the Chinese won.

Gunpowder wouldn't be a problem in my opinion...the Chinese never used it for anything but fireworks, and if Rome ever stumbled upon a cache of it, I think they would turn into some sort of death tool. Romans were good that.

Gunpowder wouldn't be a problem in my opinion...the Chinese never used it for anything but fireworks, and if Rome ever stumbled upon a cache of it, I think they would turn into some sort of death tool. Romans were good that.

I didn't take that into account, and your right, Rome probably would have found SOME sort of use for it...

...I still say Qin wins though, as soon as they see Rome using it as an effective weapon, I'm sure they'll start using it as well.

I voted for the romans because their adaptability...the base was "at the height of their power", in real historical context nothing that could be achieved. I second the point on Marcus Aurelius

Yeah, the Chinese did use the fireworks in combat from time to time, but eventually the scare factor wore off.

I think the first cannon's were developed in the Middle East, and diffused from there. After a while, the East caught on, and they were probably like, "Doh!" :p

You dont need Gunpowder when you have Balistas and the likes firing 3'+ bolts at peoples heads.

I d say The Romans.
Their coolness in battle would be a key thing but they didnt like Cavalry especially Mounted Archers so that becomes sticky.
Either way it would be a Cannae for one of them.

and remember...
I like Rome. They have good sandwhiches.
My type of logic.

Potaria a Legion was roughly between 4500 and 6000 men(I think the 6000 includes Auxillaries or it might just be up to full strength.)
I think the most ever assembelled was 60,000 or so at Cannae most would have been 4 or 5 Legions= 24,000.

The Chinese had the largest army and one of the best navies in the known world at that time, not to mention a massive production system. The legions were disciplined, and their training quite large. Later on, they still numbered quite large and outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 of any European army until the 1500th century, when China began to go into decline.

Damn that Empress Dowager.

The Chinese had the largest army and one of the best navies in the known world at that time, not to mention a massive production system. The legions were disciplined, and their training quite large. Later on, they still numbered quite large and outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 of any European army until the 1500th century, when China began to go into decline.

Damn that Empress Dowager.

Empress Dowager was Barbarian Manchu ... :D
But then the Manchus controlled China since 1644 until 1911.

You dont need Gunpowder when you have Balistas and the likes firing 3'+ bolts at peoples heads.


The Chu-ko-nu is equipped with a magazine which holds 10 steel-tipped bolts, about 5/16" in diameter and 7.25" long, which it shoots in succession....It was designed primarily for a high "rate of fire" for use against massed troops at ranges probably not exceeding 50-75 yards. While certainly not as accurate as single-shot crossbows, which are deliberately aimed from the shoulder, its ability to discharge missiles at rates of up to about two per second, against an extended target, could create pandemonium and a high casualty rate in the ranks of the enemy. Cavalry would be especially vulnerable, since the horse presents a large target, and a wounded animal is difficult to control.

Plus to counter the Romans use and expertise of siege warfare... The chu-ko-nu was thus particularly effective as a fortress defense weapon against troops approaching and massing about its ramparts... Each corner of the fort has such a tower. The walls of its upper half are perforated with rectangular window-like openings which were designed for archers defending the city. There are 4 rows and 14 columns of these openings in each of the two outer-facing walls, making a total of 112 openings. If a chu-ko-nu, with a nominal rate of fire of one bolt/second, were being used at each opening, the total downpour on besieging troops would be a prodigious 6,720 bolts per minute

Ouch.

There's one thing about the Chinese which puzzles me. They can go built the Great Wall of China from stone, yet all their castles are made of wood ... and I'm Chinese ethically. The Japanese castles were wood with stone bases as well.

I'd say Qin would win.

At the height of power the romans had a maximum of 50 legions consisting of upto 8000 legionaires, 800 hundred ranged infantry and 800 cavalry.
If we take the assumption that all legions are maxed out (usually not the case) that would be around 500k soldiers.

The Qin state (before it formed the Qin dynasty) during war with a neighboring state killed that many troops in a battle.
If you take into account that all states at that time followed a 3 army strategy and that the smallest of them could muster 300k soldiers per army that would result in a minimum of 6.3 million soldiers for a unified China.
Cutting that back (misreading ,etc) to a total of 100k per army would still result in a minimum army of 2.1 million soldiers.

Then there are doctrine differences. The Legions were formed around infantry shocktroops. The Qin made extensive use of crossbows and cavalry both devastating to an army that uses those as auxilaries.

If you mean the hight of Roman Power, by means of the largest its borders ever where and its major enemies destroyed; this being under the rule of Emperor Trajan after he conquered what is now Iraq and destroyed the Parthians, then I would go with the Romans.

However, a chinese army would have number superiority in this type of combat, however it would be a bulk of ill-trained spear wielding infantry. The Romans had already defeated the Greek Phalanx, created the tortoise shield formation, and learned how to moved in seperate units in an orchestrated effort. So long as the Roman commander is a competant one, I believe he can win. Even without one though, the Chinese would loose a hella' lot of men.

I vote for Qin:

-around 600 BC, 'the art of war' was written. The chinese knew how to go to war.
-Sun Tzu said: 'In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers ... Such is the cost of raising an army of 100 ,000 men.' the numbers he uses tell you that a single regular chinese army was probably at least twice as large as the entire roman army (10 legions? in total 60 000 men plus non-romans). And i suppose those chariots would hurt too :)
-china was rather advanced at the time rome was formed ...

Not in the slightest, Octavian commanded 280,000 men at Actium, all legionnaries. Furtehrmore, the art of war, though useful, is merely comparable to Caesar or Vegetius writings as a tome, and Caeser remains one of the finest generals mankind has record of. Furthermore, countless Gallic tribes utilised chariots, they were anhillated, no infantry has ever been comparble to Roma legionnaries,and they possessed the finest generals in history.

And chris here has a point. That was just he number of Legionaries on Octavians side, not mentioning Anthony's own troops.

The Qin Dynasty however is quite the powerful force, having to conquer a number of rivaling Chinese provinces, mostly outnumbered. While the Romans possibly had tactical advantages and powerful generals, the Chinese had their own, inventing the ideal of hit-and-run tactics they adopted from Hunnic migrators, as well the most powerful siege weapon during their time.

...inventing the ideal of hit-and-run tactics...
OK, if the Chinese "invented" hit-and-run tactics, tell me how the got conquered by the Mongols who utilized the same tactics? By the way, you also contradicted yourself when you said they "adapted" hit-and-run tactics.

Those were mainly envelopment tactics used by the Mongols/Huns, with a lure, and a sudden envelopment on horse mounted heavy cavalry. People prepare to engage the lure, the lure runs away, they go, "Hey, they're running away! Let's chase we won!" Later, "Oh, s***!"

If you are talking about modern guerilla tactics, that can be traced back to the way the Native American's fought. Until then, everybody liked to stand in lines and wear bright uniforms, and run at eachother with sharp objects or shoot at eachother with high-speed projectiles. Indians? Nah, they'd hide in a bush, behind a tree, and snipe you. Nobody liked that, or still does today, but that's how the game's played.

Looked up more on Rome: I'm convinced they'd win now.

I don't honestly know...

As someone mentioned, there was a clash between Romans and Chinese... though given that it's incredibly likely that these men were the ex-prisoners of Parthia, and elderly (really, 50+), they'd not be in the peak of fighting ability. They still formed up in the triplex Acies, hehe.

for those that note Chinas numerical superiority would grant them victory, I'd dis-agree. Remember Alexander and his invasion of Persia. Considerably outnumbered, he defeated Darius' army in the field time after time, owing to superior strategy, charisma, and expert use of combined arms tactics. As for the Cho-ku-nu tearing apart the Roman forces, this is entirely possible, but we should not put the romans as so inflexible, that every shot would be accurate (indeed, one could suppose that most shots would not be accurate) and the Roman losses would be less than we might consider. As an example, take archers in the field. A group of archers can release thousands of arrows against a foe.... but yet the casualties caused could be significantly less. Though the Cho-ku-nu is a significantly more lethal weapon, one should not assume it would be like bringing a first world war machinegun to bear against the legionaries.

That said... I don't know the skill of your average chinese recruit at this time. If they weren't as professionally equipped or trained as the Romans, I'd severely doubt their victory. If they used a western style phalanx (it's not as if the concept is so specialised that it's unlikely, and if they did use spears it is their most... potent application) then the Roman victory would be assured, as is demonstrated in the First, Second, and Third Macedonian War, not to mention against the king Antiochus the third of Seleucia, the Romans had anti-phalanx combat down to an art. Indeed, at Pydna, the Romans killed 20,000 men, taking another 6000 prisoner of the Macedonian phalanx block, destroying his royal forces (Agema) entirely. All for the cost of around 100 men. Should the Chinese deploy similarly... numbers would clearly not aid them.

OK, if the Chinese "invented" hit-and-run tactics, tell me how the got conquered by the Mongols who utilized the same tactics? By the way, you also contradicted yourself when you said they "adapted" hit-and-run tactics.

Those were mainly envelopment tactics used by the Mongols/Huns, with a lure, and a sudden envelopment on horse mounted heavy cavalry. People prepare to engage the lure, the lure runs away, they go, "Hey, they're running away! Let's chase we won!" Later, "Oh, s***!"

If you are talking about modern guerilla tactics, that can be traced back to the way the Native American's fought. Until then, everybody liked to stand in lines and wear bright uniforms, and run at eachother with sharp objects or shoot at eachother with high-speed projectiles. Indians? Nah, they'd hide in a bush, behind a tree, and snipe you. Nobody liked that, or still does today, but that's how the game's played.

Looked up more on Rome: I'm convinced they'd win now.

You failed to understand my post. They adopted a version of modern hit-and-run tactics from Hunnic migrators and turned it into what is seen as hit and run tactics in today.

You're also failing to understand that there is a 1,000 year difference between the beginning of Mongol Invasion, and the Qin Dynasty, which apparently was during Hunnic times. The Qin Dynasty had resorted to hit-and-run tactics early on, but when they unified China into a single governing body they became more interested in large scale attacks. Over time they used the tactic less and less, and no longer used it at all when the Mongols invaded China.

I'm familiar with the Mongol and Hunnic war strategies, but the Huns created the basics, the Chinese adopted it, and the Mongols mastered it.

Also I know enough about Rome, but I'm convinced the Qin Dynasty would win. People argue that Rome's commanders and their army skill and tactics are what they have to win, but it's also noting this: The chinese had their own as well, and they sure as well have enough discipline and experience in war to use it.

Put that together with their rapid technology and the massive number of troops (combined into the art of war), those are my main reasons why China would win.

I don't honestly know...
for those that note Chinas numerical superiority would grant them victory, I'd dis-agree. Remember Alexander and his invasion of Persia. Considerably outnumbered, he defeated Darius' army in the field time after time, owing to superior strategy, charisma, and expert use of combined arms tactics.

Add incompetence of the Persian commanders. The size of their cavalry alone was almost the total size of Alexanders army. Just on that they should have been capable of pinning Alexanders cavalry and outflank his infantry with ease.

As for the Cho-ku-nu tearing apart the Roman forces, this is entirely possible, but we should not put the romans as so inflexible, that every shot would be accurate (indeed, one could suppose that most shots would not be accurate) and the Roman losses would be less than we might consider. As an example, take archers in the field. A group of archers can release thousands of arrows against a foe.... but yet the casualties caused could be significantly less. Though the Cho-ku-nu is a significantly more lethal weapon, one should not assume it would be like bringing a first world war machinegun to bear against the legionaries.

A normal bow is not a crossbow. There was a good reason the nobility in Europe tried to get the crossbow outlawed, seeing that it allowed a serf with little or no training to hit and wound/kill even the most heavily armored knight. A normal bow required months of training to regularly hit moving targets, then years of training more to aquire the muscle mass to be able to use a bow that would have a chance to pierce a knights armor.

The problems the romans would encounter would probably not be the cho-ku-nu, which is a defensive weapon, but regular crossbows.
Unless the legions would be coming onto the chines through obscured terrain those have an effective range of 300 to 500 meters seeing the size of the target, well outside the range of the Roman ranged units but still in the zone where a bolt could pierce both shield and armor (if they wouldn't be targetting the cavalry & ranged unit who were less armored first).

That said... I don't know the skill of your average chinese recruit at this time. If they weren't as professionally equipped or trained as the Romans, I'd severely doubt their victory.
The average recruit was not trained as well but everyone age 17-60 was required to spend at least 1 year in the army.
The proffessionals were trained to standards that were close to those of the roman legions.
Main difference would be that the Chinese (compared to the Romans) used less infantry and more ranged weaponry + cavalry.

If they used a western style phalanx (it's not as if the concept is so specialised that it's unlikely, and if they did use spears it is their most... potent application) then the Roman victory would be assured, as is demonstrated in the First, Second, and Third Macedonian War, not to mention against the king Antiochus the third of Seleucia, the Romans had anti-phalanx combat down to an art.
Indeed, at Pydna, the Romans killed 20,000 men, taking another 6000 prisoner of the Macedonian phalanx block, destroying his royal forces (Agema) entirely. All for the cost of around 100 men. Should the Chinese deploy similarly... numbers would clearly not aid them.
A phalanx vulnerable to the cavalry and ranged units of the enemy if employed alone (especially seeing that generally only the front and 5th rows were armored). It also required that the formation of the rows was kept intact, any gaps could be exploited.

At first in the battle of Pydna the phalanxes in the center of the Macedon army managed to keep their lines closed and drive the romans back while other units protected the flanks. But in driving the romans back the formation started to break up, something which the legions exploited by attacking through the gaps. Which should not have been possible since the phalanx was designed to pin opposing infantry (which it did succesfully) so that the cavalry could engage it from the sides and behind. The second problem was the gaps in the formation. The Macedons had special units to fill those gaps.
In both cases orders were never issued. There was no cavalry involved in the battle and there were no units used to fill up the gaps.
So the reason the Macedons decisively lost this battle was bad communication on their side not that the roman legion was such a good phalanx killer (it couldn't penetrate the front line till the Macedons screwed up). We don't know what would have happened if the cavalry would have been involved and/or the gaps filled.
Also the number of dead on the roman side was more then 100 (but less then the 20k to 30k on the side of the macedonians).

So it's clear that just using the spear equipped infantry to pin down the Roman legions works (as shown in the battle you tried to use as contrary evidence) and that the combined use of cavalry + (cross)bows would be able to decimate the legions so pinned.

I guess more people argue the legions would win because Rome is a much more famous (or infamous) empire to quote. Not as many people know of the Qin.

Which will it be? Assume they fought each other, both at the height of their power, and be willing to both fight to the death.
Myrth.

I guess more people argue the legions would win because Rome is a much more famous (or infamous) empire to quote. Not as many people know of the Qin.
That really depends on where your from.
I still say the Romans would win mainly based on their ability to adapt. It is probably reasonable that among the professionals in each army, probably numbered about the same and roughly had the same training. But since the Qin Dynasty closed off an entire border and was pretty much protected by desert and mountains on the other side. They may had lost some ability to adapt to new styles of warfare. The Romans were always fighting. If you look at Roman armor from the northern territories vs the middle eastern ones there were variations to give them advantages against the opponets. The helmets were most notable, against barbarians there was an extra guard along top to help stop the sword style they used. Both sides had very different tactics, I'm sure until they all developed countermeasures to eachothers tact

That really depends on where your from.
I still say the Romans would win mainly based on their ability to adapt. It is probably reasonable that among the professionals in each army, probably numbered about the same and roughly had the same training. But since the Qin Dynasty closed off an entire border and was pretty much protected by desert and mountains on the other side. They may had lost some ability to adapt to new styles of warfare. The Romans were always fighting. If you look at Roman armor from the northern territories vs the middle eastern ones there were variations to give them advantages against the opponets. The helmets were most notable, against barbarians there was an extra guard along top to help stop the sword style they used. Both sides had very different tactics, I'm sure until they all developed countermeasures to eachothers tact
There are a few things wrong with this line of reasoning.
The Qin dynasty lasted only 15 years or so. The proto great wall building was only started in the last 3 years of this period.
Those 15 years came directly on a period of about 10 years of warfare that covered every imaginable terrain from mountains to plains.
I'd venture a guess that the Qin would be able to adapt just as well as the romans in that regard.

Qin dynasty China, easily. 3 reasons:

1) Emperor Qin Shi Huang was a badass. Come on- he got the whole bloody country named after him! A shame that his son proved to be such a bloody moron that he brought the whole thing down.

2) The Chinese were more advanced. In technology, they had crossbows; in military strategy, they had Sun Tzu (who still gives good advice to military officers, not that they ever take it).

3) This is China we're talking about; at this time, the only place with a higher population was India. More population means more soldiers; when you can field the number of men China can, everyone else just gets smished. In addition, this humongous population also gave China a gigantic, powerful economy, capable of supporting a huge army in a campaign abroad.

Geography is also a good concern. With the exception of the bitterly cold steppes of Manchuria, China is almost uninvadable from land. Rome, meanwhile, had plains and grasslands along long stretches of its border. Admittedly, mountain, deserts, and forests were present on the Romans' side.

Several people have pointed out that the Qin conquered other nations, implicitly that this would put the Romans at a disadvantage. Hello?

The Romans conquered/defeated (and here's just a short list): Macedon. Sparta. Egypt. Gaul. Brittania Major. Spain. Numidia. Seleucia. Palmyra. Carthage. Need I continue? This list covered the territory of every pretty much every major European/North Arican/Near East civilisation to that date (yes, they never fully conquered Germania. And Scythia's descendents were always annoying)

The only people the Romans could not defeat (not counting the Barbarian invaders, because the thread is about Rome being at the height of its power) were right along the edges - Caledonia, Parthia and Dacia being probably the biggest annoyances. And the Romans found ways of dealing with them too - Hadrian built a wall, while Dacia caused a re-think in terms of armour. Parthia was also far from the Roman heartland.

Rome also knew full well how to deal with chariots, which by that stage were old technology in Europe. A chariot is worse than useless when fighting in hills and rocky terrain.
Boudicca, who used chariots almost like armoured personnel carriers, was devastating when attacking unprepared legionairres on the plain. But when she had to deal with an incline, when the Romans chose the battleground, she was defeated utterly.
The only other major nations in the region that still used chariots by the time of the Romans were in Egypt and the Near East. Didn't help them much, either.

Sorry? The Romans didn't defeat the Parthians. That was the fate of Marcus Crassus, one of Caesar's rivals: The idiot led a small army of Roman legionaries into Parthia, through the desert (not a strong suit for the heavily-armored Romans), ignored the advice of the locals, and got his bum kicked by Parthian cavalry- notably, their Cantabrian circle-running archers- at the Battle of Carrhae. Crassus, the richest man in Rome, had molten gold and silver poured into his eyes, ears, and mouth.

Actually, it's possible that captured Romans in that battle eventually wound up in China (http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism/Posts/00001358.html). Chinese historians from the time period reported troops that fought in strange ways, rather like the trademark methods of Rome (the testudo formation, for example). This was from before the time period mentioned in the thread, but it's still worth considering.

Alas, I seem to be unable to find the full story of the Roman troops in China. Anybody know the full story of the battle they fought in?

Sorry? The Romans didn't defeat the Parthians.
Ah, my mistake. Will corect my post now. Thanks for pointing that out.

But you still have to admit that the Romans conquered a helluva lot of people, using very impressive tactics.

As did the Qin dynasty. Hence the comparison. China can be described as a Roman Empire that didn't so much fall as shatter, reform, shatter, reform, and so on- presumably, due in no small part to the fact that most of China is inland, whereas most of Europe is within a few hundred kilometers of the ocean/sea.

I was mainly responding to those who pointed out the Qin's conquests, while completely ignoring the Roman's similar ability to conquer pretty much everyone they met. Just trying to balance it a bit.

Ah, but I think the motivation of those people was the decided imbalance toward Rome in the polls. Perhaps their thought was to highlight the fact that the Romans (who are highly glorified in Western culture) weren't the only great conquerers around.

Alright, you guys have plenty of Roman experts among you. Now I wouldn't know tell a gladius Hispaniensis from a spatha but I do a little about ancient Chinese military history.

A) The Chinese do have the earliest claim for separating and using gunpowder, but that was about 6th Century AD . The Qin dynasty only lasted until 207 BC , and the earliest (function) Chinese gunpowder-based weapons didn't come about until the Ming Dynasty (Past 1000AD).

Sidetrack:
If it hadn't been the Qing (Manchu) invasion China's development of gunpowder weapons may have made it a colonial power like the Europeans in the 18th-19th century.

B)The Chee-Koo Nu (or multi-shot crossbow) was likely to be invented between 50AD-120AD during the Three Kingdoms Period.

The first mention of such a device ANYWHERE was in the Chinese historical treatise/novel "Romance of the Three Kingdoms". Even though that book iw known to have has some fantasy elements within its storyline, it is mostly based on historical research by the author.

Just thought I'd get a few things cleaned up.

What you have to also remember is that to fight each other the Romans would have had to invade the middleeast russia etc. just to get to the Chineseso that may give them an advantage in that by then a huge are of th known world woul have been Roman, and they could have stolen more ideas form those tribes they have conquered. It would also give them more soldiers (or atleast Auxilleries) to play with but also to do this Rome would have had to drasticly increase the size of its legions which it was relectant to do so.

What you have to also remember is that to fight each other the Romans would have had to invade the middleeast russia etc. just to get to the Chineseso that may give them an advantage in that by then a huge are of th known world woul have been Roman, and they could have stolen more ideas form those tribes they have conquered. It would also give them more soldiers (or atleast Auxilleries) to play with but also to do this Rome would have had to drasticly increase the size of its legions which it was relectant to do so.

Ah, but it could have been the other way around. Why couldn't the Chinese consume all that land (using their superior numbers, money, and equipment) and use it to bash the Romans?

A more fair solution would probably be to have them meet halfway, in India, Tibet, Sinkiang, or the Russian steppes. With the exception of the plains, these are all areas that the Chinese would know more about fighting upon- there aren't any jungles in Europe, and very few mountains (and none of those compare to Tibet or the Himalayas).

The Qin. China was a very advanced civilization, they had many technologies before any other part of the world did.

Rome, mostly because they had massive forces. They usually didn't record Auxilliaries or Mercenaries so their forces are often over double what you'd think. Not to mention all the various conquered troops they had. Caesar made massive use f gallic and german cavalry in his wars for example.

Rome, mostly because they had massive forces. They usually didn't record Auxilliaries or Mercenaries so their forces are often over double what you'd think. Not to mention all the various conquered troops they had. Caesar made massive use f gallic and german cavalry in his wars for example.

Again, China has the same strengths; they also have the advantage of a much larger populace, and more advanced technology.

Gunpowder wouldn't be a problem in my opinion...the Chinese never used it for anything but fireworks, and if Rome ever stumbled upon a cache of it, I think they would turn into some sort of death tool. Romans were good that.

That's incorrect:

By the twelfth century, the armies of the Sung Dynasty added metal grenades to their arsenal. China pioneered fragmentation bombs, whose casings shattered into deadly shrapnel. Within another hundred years, Chinese factories made hundreds of military rockets and bombs, some filled with poisons, such as arsenic, that released on impact. Others were packed with tar and oil, designed to start fires. The Chinese also built early guns, metal barrels packed with gunpowder, which shot out a rock or a metal ball.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1225.html

...the earliest illustration of a cannon in the world, which dates from the change-over from the Northern Song to the Southern Song around 1127, which was 150 years before the development of the cannon in the West. The Song also used gunpowder to make fire lances - actually flame throwers - and many other gunpowder weapons, such as anti-personnel mines, which are thankfully now being taken out of general use.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1225.html

The question of "which one had better sword?" has very little to do with the question "which of the empires would have won a untill-the-very-end-war?".

What counts is the capability for a long-term manpower-eating shitloads-costing warfare that'll last for centuries. With OVERWHELMING population and internal stability, as the Chinese empire had something like 90% as same nationality and culture, han-chinese, they'd have the upper hand as in Rome the situation was quite the opposite.

In one big battle? Rome would pwn.

War that'll last years after years of endless big battles? Qin, with ease.

Several people have pointed out that the Qin conquered other nations, implicitly that this would put the Romans at a disadvantage. Hello?

If that is how what I said came over to you I've given the wrong impression.
I was merely using that to give an impression of the size of their armies and that they knew how to fight. Seeing that quite a number of people don't seem to know anything about the chinese around 200BC and because of that implicitly assume that the Romans would win.

Rome also knew full well how to deal with chariots, which by that stage were old technology in Europe. A chariot is worse than useless when fighting in hills and rocky terrain.
Which was known to the Chinese, it's the reason they had switched to cavalry & (cross)bow equipped units in the years before the Qin dynasty.

Boudicca, who used chariots almost like armoured personnel carriers, was devastating when attacking unprepared legionairres on the plain. But when she had to deal with an incline, when the Romans chose the battleground, she was defeated utterly.

Most of her army was close combat infantry (numerical speaking), not chariots. She got trounced in that location because she did not use her superior numbers, estimated at over 10:1 in her favor, to try and encircle the romans.
Her forces did a full frontal assault on an army setup to receive such an attack, then were slowly pushed back, then routed, into the units coming from behind & the supply train behind those units.

-snip-
Bravo, good explaination.

However, due to my ignorance and stubborness, I'm going to stick with Rome, dispite the fact they never subdued my scantly clad, perhaps even nude (in the summer months), ancestors: the Poles, Germans, and various Nordic things I consist of. And on the basis that I have already casted my vote.

I think during the power stuggle between these two empires, the Vikings will seize power, somehow. There will be no winner! And kudos to whomever brought up the Greco-Persian war thing, that brought back good debates from history class....

'Nuf of me, more of the raging debate of East vs. West, before communism that is.

EDIT: Had to go and read every post, didn't I? Meh, here I go....

Adaptaion - The Qin Dynasty lasted for 15 years, mentioned somewhere in this thread, 10 of which was spent fighting. While we are mainly focoused on military stength and power here, I now severly question the Qin's ability to lead a prolonged war. I would a assume that they arouse in conflict, and fell in conflict. While the Roman's had many conflicts, one could argue that they lasted until the 15th century, making them VERY and almost short of INCONCIEVABLY flexible. With the Qin, just not seeing that.

Gunpowder and Weapons - While the Qin did not use gunpowder as a tool of death, they still had caches the Romans could stumble upon. The Hellenistic world had pitch or someother kind of explosive in clay pots that they threw, and I'm sure they could adopt the gun powder as a weapon. This isn't Greek Fire I'm trying to recall.... Anyhow, the Chinese seem to have used gunpowder in unpleasant ways before the Europeans did. That's good, but it occurs 700 years or so after this imagined conflict, which = good for Rome.

Cavalry - Did the Chinese/Qins (let's use them interchangeably now) field that many horses? I imagine it would be a strain on their agriculture, but then again the Yellow River does pwn. If I recall correctly, when Mongols had control of China, they used mainly engineers and infantry from the Chinese provience, lost in Vietnam, but more or less killed everyone else on the planet. Anyhow, it is possible, but I doubt it.

Qin dynasty China, easily. 3 reasons:

1) Emperor Qin Shi Huang was a badass. Come on- he got the whole bloody country named after him! A shame that his son proved to be such a bloody moron that he brought the whole thing down.

2) The Chinese were more advanced. In technology, they had crossbows; in military strategy, they had Sun Tzu (who still gives good advice to military officers, not that they ever take it).

3) This is China we're talking about; at this time, the only place with a higher population was India. More population means more soldiers; when you can field the number of men China can, everyone else just gets smished. In addition, this humongous population also gave China a gigantic, powerful economy, capable of supporting a huge army in a campaign abroad.

Geography is also a good concern. With the exception of the bitterly cold steppes of Manchuria, China is almost uninvadable from land. Rome, meanwhile, had plains and grasslands along long stretches of its border. Admittedly, mountain, deserts, and forests were present on the Romans' side.

Not in the slightest. Qin Shui Huang is not comparable to Caligula, Nero or mnay others in terms of malevolence, and Caesar named a month, several provinces and cities after himself, was one of the greatest military minds ever to grace the earth, and a skilled orator. Vegetius is similar in many respects to Sun Tzu, they advocate tactics for their own respective nations, whilst the Roman officer corps were irrefutably the greatest in history. I believe I am also right in claiming that in the reign of Trajan, the empire outnumbered any other state on earth, including the Qin, whilst to the empires east in Trajan's period was the deserts of Arabia, Mesopotamia, the black sea, and the caucasus' mountains.

Adaptaion - The Qin Dynasty lasted for 15 years, mentioned somewhere in this thread, 10 of which was spent fighting. While we are mainly focoused on military stength and power here, I now severly question the Qin's ability to lead a prolonged war. I would a assume that they arouse in conflict, and fell in conflict. While the Roman's had many conflicts, one could argue that they lasted until the 15th century, making them VERY and almost short of INCONCIEVABLY flexible. With the Qin, just not seeing that.
Correction on this I said 10 years of warfare before the 15 years of the Qin dynasty.
If you can say that the Romans lasted to the 15th century I want to point out that the chinese empire in different forms lasted till well into the 19th century and in better shape (reduction to 1/3 original size then to city state for the Romans as opposed to expanding it's borders for China).
About the ability of the Qin to wage a prolonged war:
The entire state (before the dynasty) was based on one thing, to organise and maintain the largest army possible. This to the point where a neighboring state thought it was possible to bankrupt the Qin state by getting them to build one of the most fertile irrigation canals ever, the costs were huge but not enough and in the end it allowed the Qin to enlarge it armies even more.


Gunpowder and Weapons - While the Qin did not use gunpowder as a tool of death, they still had caches the Romans could stumble upon. The Hellenistic world had pitch or someother kind of explosive in clay pots that they threw, and I'm sure they could adopt the gun powder as a weapon. This isn't Greek Fire I'm trying to recall.... Anyhow, the Chinese seem to have used gunpowder in unpleasant ways before the Europeans did. That's good, but it occurs 700 years or so after this imagined conflict, which = good for Rome.

Gunpowder did not appear until the Song dynasty (5th century AD).
So no possibility that the Romans could stumble over a cache of the stuff.

Cavalry - Did the Chinese/Qins (let's use them interchangeably now) field that many horses? I imagine it would be a strain on their agriculture, but then again the Yellow River does pwn. If I recall correctly, when Mongols had control of China, they used mainly engineers and infantry from the Chinese provience, lost in Vietnam, but more or less killed everyone else on the planet. Anyhow, it is possible, but I doubt it.
Exact army composition was unknown but a chinese farmer could harvest on average about 4 times more at this time then a comparable farmer in Europe. This due to things like the plow, seed drill, using the most appropiate food crop for an area, etc. Note no animal drawn plows until the Han dynasty.
An indication to the size of the cavalry; The second Qin emperor while trying to quell the rebellions heard at one point that a fairly important city was taken by rebels and dispatched a part of the army he was commanding containing 30000 cavalry to retake it.

@Chris:
You might want to rethink that. Yes Trajan increased the Roman empire to the largest size it has known thing is that the amount of land controlled would have fit into the borders of Qin dynasty China. And china was at that time already one of the most populated areas in the world (the Roman empire never contained 1/4 of the total population of the world).

@Whallop: I recognize that Chinese culture has existed for an incredibly long time, probably the oldest remaining today along with Indian culture. However, were the people that the Mongols placed on the Chinese throne in the Yuan Dynasty very rich Chinese aristocrates, or Mongols? If it is Chinese, then you are correct and I conceede the point.

However, the Qin Dynasty, could not survive as long as Rome, politically. That was my point, and that if the Qin were overthrown due to domestic termoil, that could, and probably would, usher in a pro-peace regime with Rome. The battle we're arguing would go about in a nasty way. But the reason why they could not survive is that they it was a hereditarial government, with occasional upheavals. The Romans had an electoral system, later replaced by dictator-like Emperors, that at times were elected, or feigned an election. Then the Popes come in, and yadda yadda. And don't forget about the Russians, and Eastern Rome!

And on Rome's legacy and whatnot, while it is not generally talked about in most Western countries, most people in view Rome and Greece as the basis of their civilization, at least in my neck of the woods, and feel they must carry on their legacy. And so, in that form, they are more or less carrying on a contemporary Roman culture, just much more modified than Chinese culture.

So, still today, the world is divided on cultural lines. I could say that England carried on their own brand of Rome's legacy and carved out a great Empire, but, I realise that is not pertinent to our discussion.

Anyhow, the Roman Empire lasted until 15th century, culturally Chinese Empires lasted until the 19th or 20th century, whatever you said.

@All: Anyhow, I've gotten mightily off track. Thanks all for sharing your knowledge and whatnot, I've learned quite much, but still root for Rome! If China has 1/4 of the worlds population, now, then, whenever, its a lot of people. Nasty mess jumping into that hornet's nest.

Especially with gunpowder out of the question. It makes it more of how many people can you throw at the Romans? question.

In a drawn out conflict, I'd have to say that the Roman Empire would undoubtedly win. The Qin Dynasty may have been powerful under the First Emperor, but after his death, there were widespread revolts and the Dynasty disintegrated. The secret to the "success" of the Qin was a strong and brutal leader at its helm. The First Emperor had a tight grip on almost every aspect of the people's lives, and when this grip was gone, the nation naturally fell apart.

The Roman Empire at its height did not have as much trouble as the Qin did with controlling its people. It did not rely on authoritarianism like the Qin, and would not have suffered such a backlash from its citizens if the authority of the government happened to weaken. And note that the Roman economy was much less regulated than the Qin one. The living standards of the people would be much worse off under the Qin during a war than the Romans, naturally contributing to greater dissent among the Qin populace.

China was split into smaller subdivisions even when the Qin united it under a single rule, where magistrates, police, and all the manner of a semi-political caste system formed. While Humanistic Principles' words of a brutal efficient, leader may be true, it's most likely in fact that because of Emperor intervention that would keep Qin strong. Remember, during those times China was extremely superstitious, and any slight changes (usually for the worst) would make the people easily revolt, believing that the Emperor has done something wrong.

answering in reverse order today :rolleyes:

@Jenrak:
In this case they revolted because of the enormous tax burden, it increased to 50%+ of total income in those 15 years, and conscipt labor, one year, required to complete all the building projects setup by the Qin.

@Humanistic:
The poll set a requirement of at the height of it's power for both sides.
China did not disintegrate, infact the Han dynasty that took the place of the Qin is considered one of the brightest times in the history of China.
The romans did rely as much as the Qin on authority, the difference was that most of the roman emporers either got checked by the senate or were bright enough to not over extend their empire in the way that Qin Shi Huang did.
The difference basically being ruling with an iron fist (Qin) or ruling with an iron fist in a velvet glove (Rome).


@All: Anyhow, I've gotten mightily off track. Thanks all for sharing your knowledge and whatnot, I've learned quite much, but still root for Rome!
That is your right :)
I'm just trying to alter a bit of the eurocentric mindset.


And on Rome's legacy and whatnot, while it is not generally talked about in most Western countries, most people in view Rome and Greece as the basis of their civilization, at least in my neck of the woods, and feel they must carry on their legacy. And so, in that form, they are more or less carrying on a contemporary Roman culture, just much more modified than Chinese culture.

So, still today, the world is divided on cultural lines. I could say that England carried on their own brand of Rome's legacy and carved out a great Empire, but, I realise that is not pertinent to our discussion.

Maybe not pertinent but you are right. The western world is based on the Roman/Greek civilisations. And the western world has made quite good work from the basics provided to them.

However, the Qin Dynasty, could not survive as long as Rome, politically. That was my point, and that if the Qin were overthrown due to domestic termoil, that could, and probably would, usher in a pro-peace regime with Rome. The battle we're arguing would go about in a nasty way. But the reason why they could not survive is that they it was a hereditarial government, with occasional upheavals. The Romans had an electoral system, later replaced by dictator-like Emperors, that at times were elected, or feigned an election. Then the Popes come in, and yadda yadda. And don't forget about the Russians, and Eastern Rome!
Rome at the height of it's power was also had a hereditary emperor. Might want to look up the period after Nero died, had a nice civil war there called the year of the four emporers. The revolt against the Qin basically had the same end result, new face on the throne, same policies

Going to try and comment on if the uprising. Can't say it would have happened or not with a threat as the roman empire knocking on the border what can be said is that bit of time isn't the height of the Qin dynasty anymore (one of the the poll conditions). Also knowing the mindset of the time everyone would have tried to ally with the Romans as long as the Romans would do the bleeding (that's what you got foreign barbarians for) then kill of the remainder of the Roman army when they got control of China. If that would not work and the Roman army would overrun a part of China the remaining parties would team up and try to kick the Romans out (then start going after each other again to get control over China).

I'd also like to point out that if you are going to talk about dynasty lenghts there are a bunch of Roman dynasties that lasted less then the Qin dynasty. But again the result was the same for both sides, new face on the throne, old policies slightly adapted to the tastes of the new emporer.

I recognize that Chinese culture has existed for an incredibly long time, probably the oldest remaining today along with Indian culture. However, were the people that the Mongols placed on the Chinese throne in the Yuan Dynasty very rich Chinese aristocrates, or Mongols? If it is Chinese, then you are correct and I conceede the point
If you look at it in this way the Roman empire ended in 1201 since Byzantium got conquered by the 4th crusade about 10 years before Ghengis Khan started the project of conquering China.
The Mongols placed their own on the throne but at the same time tried to not get contaminated by Chinese influences. They had to rule through the bureaucracy setup during the Qin/Han dynasty although they tried to keep as much of the controlling functions in their own hands or in the hands of the non-ethnically chinese. The further away from Khublai Khan the more sinicized(sp?) the Mongols ruling China became, thereby losing more and more control over the Mongols outside of China (who saw them as Chinese not Mongols) while the Chinese considered them forgeign occupiers due to the refusal to have anything to do with things considered Chinese, even though they were more like the Chines in behaviour then Mongol in the end.