Mauryans faced the Sassanids? That must have been difficult when the two nations existed hundreds of years apart.
Printable View
Mauryans faced the Sassanids? That must have been difficult when the two nations existed hundreds of years apart.
Who says the Chinese would be invading the Roman Empire? If anything, given the expansionist tendencies of the Romans it would more likely be the other way around, and in my opinion the defender has the inherent advantage here. With two massive entities like this, it's not going to come down to tactics, weaponry or generals, it's going to come down to attrition. In the expanses of the Western Chinese steppe, it doesn't necessarily matter if the Romans win battle after battle, they still have to keep marching forward into hostile, unforgiving territory inhabited by a hostile population. Plus, I do not doubt the nomads would take the opportunity to raid the supplies of both sides, but the Chinese do not have as far to go to resupply. By the time the Romans reached the major population centers further East they would be demoralized, exhausted, starving, and their forces would be depleted from the toils of the journey and nomadic raids. The Central Asian Steppe is simply not the kind of terrain you march an army across and expect them to come out on the other side ready to fight (unless your forces are nomadic and used to that lifestyle). As such, if the Chinese were the ones to attack, they would most likely lose as well. But in my opinion, if this were to ever happen (very unlikely in the first place), it would have been the Romans doing the attacking, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
You do realize that China's heartland is the east half of the country and they expanded far west to secure parts of the Silk Road right? They were pretty expansionistic in their own right. Several expeditions were sent into Korea/Vietnam/Mongolia/Central Asia to subdue the Goreyeo/Viet/Xiongnu/Turks and other ethnic groups in those regions. They just ran into the same problem that the Romans did in Germany where there just wasn't anything worth taking in sight.
Rome just looks more aggressive because of the Mediterranian making things go faster in the middle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ta...rca_700_CE.png
Well, the point I was trying to make overall was that realistically neither would have invaded the other because there was really not much of a point from either perspective. For the sake of demonstration I was assuming the Romans were invading, not that I really thought either actually would. So the fact that the Chinese did have expansionist tendencies (note that I never said they didn't, I just feel like the Romans had a more expansionist attitude; but I'm not trying to prove anything here or state that this is a fact) really doesn't change much because my post was primarily speculation about an event that I felt was extremely unlikely in the first place.
Even so, you cannot compare the two. One is geared towards outgrinding the opposition with heavy infanty; while the other is geared towards marksmanship against HAs and stopping cavalry/chariot charges. The only thing similar between the Chinese and Romaioi is that they're both the respective One True Barbaroi in their side of the world.
Well, part of my point was that the military differences aren't really what's important here. If either of these invasions actually happened, it wouldn't be determined by which military is "better" on a tactical level (and I agree that they are very different so claiming one is better doesn't really make sense) but instead by strategic factors, with the actual make up of the armies being a secondary issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
Rome once tried to fight a much smaller and much less powerfull opponent, the south Arabians, this way. With much smaller a distance, which was often traversed by travelling merchant (incense route), with much less plundering nomads on their path. And of course Arabia wasn't the most forgiving terrain, but the path to China has it's fair share of extreme climates and terrains as well. Perhaps even much more so than Arabia. Considering they had much less knowledge on the far east than Arabia the path must have been even more difficult to walk. And as Rome failed to overcome in South arabia from divided people with much less resources and in no way a comparible army, I fail to see how they could have ever made a succesfull invasion of the more resourcefull, advanced, much more populous, distanced,... Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
And I'm saying that the Chinese were equally expansionistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
China's cultural heartland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xia_dynasty.svg
to Han controlled China at its greatest extents in Central Asia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ta...rca_700_CE.png
and SW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ming-Empire2.jpg
Which rivalled the size of the Roman empire.
Nope :-pQuote:
The only thing similar between the Chinese and Romaioi is that they're both the respective One True Barbaroi in their side of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif
My point was exactly that; that the Romans could never have succeeded due to those factors, so it wouldn't matter if their military was supposedly "better."Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
OK, and that doesn't change my more important conclusion that if either of them were to attempt the invasion, they would be doomed to fail, for the reasons I (and Moros) listed above. Forget about my opinion that the Romans would be more likely to invade, that's just an opinion, not a fact. The important point is that it most likely wouldn't happen in the first place and no matter who invaded who it be disastrous for the invaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you there or in the other dozen previous threads on this topic.
Sadly, this will not be happening in AtB. We cut the Romans, and invading Chinese wouldn't make much sense, as there certainly isn't a large Xiongnu invasion (or at least, not yet).
I was merely clarifying to make sure you understand the real point I was trying to makeQuote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Exactly right. Mildly arrogant as the Chinese were, they regarded themselves as the center of the world. Why would the "only civilised people" go to barbarian places?Quote:
Direct contact via the Silk Road was ever rare, due to the mildly ridiculous distances involved. It's not like the Chinese ever came *themselves* to sell their silk in the Levant and Black Sea ports, or had any reason to.
I think the Chinese held the Romans in quite high regard actually, they considered them the other great empire at the opposite end of the world, giving them the name Daqin meaning "Great Qin".
They always hold high regard to their major customers, they held the parthians and Sassanids in very high regard too. Consider how much gold (directly or indirectly) and riches flowed east because of the silk road...
Most of the silver mined by the Spanish in South America went to China.
Actually IIRC the numbers Braudel crunched in The Mediterranean in the 1500s much of the Spanish cash flow went to pay for the bloody morass that was the Eighty Years' War, naval pissing contests both on the Atlantic and the Med, courtly high living, and the pockets of the Genoese bankers who pretty much had a lock on the Spanish eonomy...
May also have contributed to the wage-spiral and silver inflation of the period.
Somewhere down the road much of the precious metal probably did end migrating to Asia either at the Levant terminals or at the source, though.
Nice to see that this thread has not degraded to the level of bias and one-mindedness I see on most "Rome vs. China" threads in other forums. The Guild is a class above the rest. For those of you interested, the topic is discussed extensively on this thread in the China History Forum. Though the discussion becomes heated at times there are some truly excellent posts in there.
Fantastic! Thank you CaesarAugustus. It should be an interesting read.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
IIRC, one of the reasons for the Opium Wars was Europe running out of precious metals from the ridiculous trade deficits they had with China. Atleast that's what one of my Humanities professors said though he was full of crap half hte time.
Under your line of though, then isn't it about time the US invade China and set up madatory Heroin trade?
Or better yet they can just legalize it and tax is like they do with smoking (which is more harmful.)
Government regulation goes a long way to insuring quality, whereas at the moment you don't know what other stuff can be in the drug like baking powder....not exactly good when directly injected into the blood stream.
Then again I'm going off topic, so I'll just state that the Chinese would likely win due to the huge population and advanced crossbows. When it comes to ancient wars it normally falls down to whoever has more fighting men in the population (almost a guarantee regarding agriculture vs hunter-gatherers).
Tobacco more harmful than Heroin? :inquisitive:
I'm sure a fair few doctors that would be surprised to learn that.
Yeah.... dude, heroin is serious stuff. You might want to check out Requiem for a Dream and give it a watch.
You sure? My views are purely conceptual, but it seems that the only direct negative effects of heroin is the risk of lungs relaxing too much to breathe.
Apparently all other risk factors are mainly because it's illegal and unregulated. Since it's illegal there's no form of government regulation whatsoever, and as a result the producers don't really much care what cuts the heroin (as long as its white and powdery). Even, as mentioned before, if said chemical is really bad when injected directly into the bloodstream. Illegal substances also attract organized crime, which is also a risk factor but not because heroin itself is lethal.
Overdosing is also a side effect but mainly a side effect of not knowing how pure the substance you're smoking/injecting/snorting is. If it were regulated people would know exactly how much is in a gram of the stuff and "use" accordingly. Sort of like alcohol, really.
On the other hand tobacco may be less addictive but the damaging effects have been proven long ago. That stuff ruins the lungs for sure. Lung cancer, heart attacks, cardiovascular problems, among others. Compared to simply death from lung failure (which only applies during overdose, which again can be mediated if we had regulation) I would see tobacco as much more deadly than heroin.
Again, all of this is purely conceptual on my part. I don't have the time to fully research the topic. I got this mainly from reading wikipedia and my views on consensual crimes. So I warn you beforehand that this is a very shallow view of the subject. Going off topic though...
That's a hardcore movie. I was like "wth" at the ending scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
Add to that heart and kindey problems, danger of choaking in vomit while unconcious and heightend risk of infectionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef
The main danger of Heroin is that it is highly addictive and extremely potent, therefore it is very easy to accidently overdose, there is very little room for error. No amount of legalisation would prevent people overdosing (people do it with alcohol regularly and thats legal).
Your also confusing the chemical toxicology of the drug with the effects resulting from the method of delivery, the inhalation of any burned substance is bad for you lungs. If tobacco is chewed it causes far less problems (but is still dangerous) where as if heroin is smoked it causes more (although carries less risk of overdose).
Depend if your from the UK or not you might have heard of a guy called David Nutt, he was the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (the body that advises the UK government on the risks posed by new substances) but was recently sacked for critising the govenments stance on the legality of various substances. He quite rightly pointed out that certain illegal substances were infact far less damaging and dangerous than things such as alcohol and tobacco and that possesion laws were out of touch with the scientific evidence. This is taken from one of his papers.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nce%29.svg.png
You'll note from the graph he produced that although tobacco is a very harmful drug (much more than people would realise) it is still nowhere near as dangerous as heroin.
Guys, this is not the right forum for either drugs or modern politics. Please take it to PM. Alternatively, you could apply for Backroom membership (see the "permission groups" in your settings menu) and I can move the posts there. Either way:
:focus:
I found this and this:
http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.phpQuote:
The population of the world circa AD 1 has been considered to be between 200 and 300 million people. In that same period, the population of the early empire under Augustus has been placed at about 45 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_DynastyQuote:
In China's first known nationwide census taken in 2 CE, the population was registered as having 57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households.
I don't take these numbers for granted, but they give a picture.
It means that almost half the world's population was living in these two behemoths!
It's only speculation (and it's funny), but if the Han and the Roman had fought each other punic war style, I don't think even the word epic cover the possibilities.
Thanks for the info, as I said before it's just my views on consensual crimes and also as said before I'm going off topic...
I didn't know the Mediterranean could support so many people at that time period.