Out of pure interest...

Hello all,

I have a very superficial and interesting question I'd like to ask :book:. I was watching Deadliest Warrior (yes yes I know its fabricated, but I like seeing the weapons in action) today and I thought to myself, how would a elite Roman army fare against a Chinese army from the same era. Ie. Rome in CE 001 vs an elite Han army or Rome in CE 300 vs an elite Jin army? I think other than 2 major trade missions that was the only major contact between the two empires?

I was looking online at some available literature but none really provided enough information to satisfy me with an answer, I figured the EB forum is the only place I could get a decent answer and spawn some good discussions!. If anyone can provide a link to some readings that would be wonderful. Also I am not sure if this question has been asked before; apologies in advance if it has, and apologies if this is regarded as an inappropriate comment for this forum.

Many thanks

A long time ago I saw a movie titled "Stand by me". It was based on a Steven King novel.
I think everybody must have seen that one by now.
In that movie somewhere along the story one of the kids asks his friends who they thought would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.
I don't know why I remembered that.

By the way, in a KH army, if you absolutely had to choose, would you rather have Thorakitai Hoplitai or Epilektoi Hoplitai? And are Rhodian Slingers really better than regular Hellenic Archers?

Well, I'd imagine the Romans might find the crossbow something of an unpleasant novelty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Well, I'd imagine the Romans might find the crossbow something of an unpleasant novelty.

---

True. Hmmm I remember reading somewhere that the Chinese had either bought or captured Roman soldiers from the East and commented on the 'fish-scale' formation they used, ie the testudo.

On the other hand ancient chinese had gladius-like swords.I've seen pics of them and they looked very similar...

aha.Here's the pic i saw."bronze swords of warring states" upper left.They look quite identical, no ???https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ese_swords.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

True. Hmmm I remember reading somewhere that the Chinese had either bought or captured Roman soldiers from the East and commented on the 'fish-scale' formation they used, ie the testudo.

---

IIRC that was the theory that Roman POWs taken by the Sassanids may eventually have ended up fighting for them in Central Asia, where the Chinese then took note of the unusual tactics employed.
Though I can't really see how one makes "fish-scales" out of the testudo - if anything it mostly resembles nothing so much as what the Romans named it after...

Also, Archippos ? For one thing see the dates. For another, yeah well; there's only so many shapes you execute a decent double-edged cut-and-thrust sword in you know.

i'm not saying they copied it from spaniards or romans.It's probably parallel evolution.But it's interesting nevertheless...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

True. Hmmm I remember reading somewhere that the Chinese had either bought or captured Roman soldiers from the East and commented on the 'fish-scale' formation they used, ie the testudo.

---

Thats a very controversial fringe theory based around the description of a Han battle in Sogdia, it's based on some very shakey thinking and most historians don't beileve a word of it. The "fish scale" formation could also be translated as describing a normal shield wall or even just how the soldiers looked like a school of fish.

Concering the OP I agree with Watchman, the chinese crossbow would cause major problems for the roman heavy infantry.

I'm reminded of the argument at the beginning of the Family Guy episode Let's Go To The Hop.

Guy 1: "Dude, the Bronze Age was so much cooler than the Iron Age."
Guy 2: "Dude the Iron Age could kick the Bronze Age’s butt any day of the week!"

Also, the Jin had Zhuge Nu. That could kill half the Romans before they could even get into close combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

i'm not saying they copied it from spaniards or romans.It's probably parallel evolution.But it's interesting nevertheless...

---

*shrug* Pretty much the same thing as why the basic guard stances of late-Medieval European longsword and the Japanese katana AFAIK have a lot in common - there's only so many ways to do stuff right, and the kind of "destruction testing" the combat-related stuff was regularly subjected to by necessity led to a decent amount of convergent parallel evolution.
Ditto, while we're at it, why things like spearheads tended to be basically similar the world over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Thats a very controversial fringe theory based around the description of a Han battle in Sogdia, it's based on some very shakey thinking and most historians don't beileve a word of it. The "fish scale" formation could also be translated as describing a normal shield wall or even just how the soldiers looked like a school of fish.

Concering the OP I agree with Watchman, the chinese crossbow would cause major problems for the roman heavy infantry.

---

Oh I was making a very superficial comment regarding the testudo and possibly in hindsight I should have put a question mark at the end of the statement; so it didn't seem like I was arrogantly making a point but rather asking another question, for that I apologise. How do you think the Romans whould have gone against Chinese cavalry? or even the siege weaponry?

Cavalry's fundamentally the same everywhere and countered by the basically same tactics (not that a lot of people haven't gone and tried rather excessively elaborate schemes for it...), and the Romans proved themselves able to fight on equal terms the Sassanids who certainly knew a thing or two about mounted warfare. As for siege weapons, uhhh ? Those are used in, you know, sieges...

Garh! My apologies, I meant siege weapons like the Scorpion (if that's classed as siege?) that were primarily used against troops rather than buildings.

I'd just use the word "artillery".....

IMO, to the barbaroi of barbaropolis, the prospect that practically every Han grunt is armed with a katapeltai.....is not a very pleasing sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Cavalry's fundamentally the same everywhere and countered by the basically same tactics (not that a lot of people haven't gone and tried rather excessively elaborate schemes for it...), and the Romans proved themselves able to fight on equal terms the Sassanids who certainly knew a thing or two about mounted warfare. As for siege weapons, uhhh ? Those are used in, you know, sieges...

---

I don't see what point your trying to make... for as far as I know there was a significant diversification in the methods used to stop cavalry. There is off course the shield wall/pike formation as we know it, but scythes were also used. Other ways to stop cavalry involved deploying minor pins on the ground (a metal tool consisting of four minor pins with one upwards directed). Charging cavalry would make these metal devices jump up and rip open the soft belly of the horses. If I'm not mistaken, these devices were found on the British islands, even in EB's timeframe. And then I don't even mention the more exotic ways of fighting cavalry (missile fire, elephants, using fire/artillery or anything else to make the horses panic)...

The same goes for the way in which cavalry is deployed. Charging with long (or shorter) spears, relying on speed or just trying to strike terror in the hearts of your opponents who never saw a chariot, a horse or the silk or armour which covered it ... Cavalry could be used in stationary situations (as those clibinarii and cataphracts), but also rely on their missile/harassing powers. I wouldn't say cavalry tactics are 'basically the same', but rather heavily depending on the socio-cultural aspects (the aspect of honor for barbarian warlords/Roman victorious Dictators and their chariots) as well as on military needs and on the situation the cavalry is involved in.

To get back on topic: it does matter which cavalry would be deployed by both Han and Romans, and it equally matters what strategy would be chosen to fight off that cavalry. However, since this confrontation would be purely fictional, we have no clue which kind of cavalry the Romans would deploy. (And my knowledge of Chinese warfare is by far too make even a remote guess about the kind of cavalry they'd have at their disposal.) Saying the Romans could handle cavalry as they fought off the Sassanids is therefore to me an unsatifactionary argument for claiming they'd be capable to fight off Han-cavalry. Romans wouldn't necessarily use the same tactics against the Han than against the Sassanids. We don't even know whether they'd keep their legionary organisation unchanged if they would enter such a war, whether they'd opt to rely for a great extent on local allied forces (as they seemed to have done in Gaul), or whether the war initiated would consist of guerilla-warfare and looting instead of pitched battles. One can imagine fighting off cavalry in a guerilla war in some mountainous region would be more difficult for an infantry army than fighting the same cavalry in a pitched battle. All these factors (and thus the most likely outcome of such a war) depend on the way how both the Romans and the Han would wish to wage this war, rather than on specific characterics of Roman or Han military itself. And then I didn't even mention the uncertainty as to how many soldiers could be deployed by both sides, whether these forces could be sufficiently supplied, the absence or presence of exotic diseases, or the Chinese (and possibly also Roman) 'habit' of trying to muster such impressive armies to make sure no-one would fight them in the first place. (I know the Chinese did this in later era's).

kind regards,

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great

I'd just use the word "artillery".....

---

Thats the word I was looking for! Garh I just couldn't think of it! It was the tip of the tongue situation. *bangs head*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy1984

I don't see what point your trying to make... for as far as I know there was a significant diversification in the methods to stop cavalry. There is off course the shield wall/pike formation as we know it, but scythes were also used. Other ways to stop cavalry involved deploying minor pins on the ground (a metal tool consisting of four minor pins with one upwards directed). Charging cavalry would make these metal devices jump up and rip open the soft belly of the horses. If I'm not mistaken, these devices were found on the British islands, even in EB's timeframe. And then I don't even mention the more exotic ways of fighting cavalry (missile fire, elephants, using fire/artillery or anything else to make the horses panic)...
The same goes for the way in which cavalry is deployed. Charging with long (or shorter) spears, relying on speed or just trying to strike terror in the hearts of your opponents who never saw a horse or a chariot,... Cavalry could be used in stationary situations (as those clibinarii and cataphracts), but also rely on their missile/harassing powers. I wouldn't say cavalry tactics are 'basically the same', but rather heavily depending on both socio-cultural aspects (the aspect of honor for barbarian warlords and their chariots) as well as on military needs and the situation the cavalry is involved in.

---

Ummm, okay.

Look, when you boil it down to the essentials cavalry basically comes in two main flavours, light and heavy. The former is the short that shoots stuff at you and stays out of contact, the latter the sort that tries to trample you fat (and usually poke you with something sharp while at it). The division is of course often blurry and the minutiae of the equipement and methodology naturally varies wildly by time and place, but the fundamentals are the same.

As far as countering them goes, the basic solution to the lights is to shoot them to bits (foot missile troops tend to be able to put out more massed and longer-ranged fire plus don't have the big vulnerable horse to complicate things, so it's normally not that difficult to do in a straight firefight) while the heavies stop dead in the face of unyielding close-order infantry. And of course if you have cavalry of your own, that can be used as a mobile counter. If the opportunity exists creative battlefield engineering and traps (including field-expedient stuff like caltrops - "jump up to rip the horses' bellies" indeed... :dizzy2:) could be used to shape the battlefield and set up potentially devastating surprises for the opponent's mounted troops. And so on and so on.

And the Romans were pretty well aquainted with all of this stuff, having themselves used and had it used against them only too often in their many wars. As far as the Chinese go they'd have little in the way of novelty to offer for Roman tacticians; their cavalry method was more or less directly copied off the Central Asian nomads, and any Roman commander who had a basic grasp of the techniques used to counter the horse-archer/cataphract tag team (say, from fighting the Parthians or Sassanids) would be on fundamentally familiar ground.

So, yeah.

IIRC, I posted an article about army deployments during the Qin Period as best as can be read from the Tomb of the First Smperor. It mentioned that the Chinese armies of the period were divided into smaller tactically flexible groups that operated semi-independently with their own cavalry, heavy infantry, and missile complements(mostly missile). Much of this was due to the broken terrain of central China. These formations proved quite robust when led well as it allowed atleast in one instance a commander to withdrawl his forces safely when the rest of the army had routed. Not sure how the difference in army organization would have helped or hindered the Chinese against Romans though.

It seems like one of the primary strategies was to form a position surrounded by heavy infantry that allowed cavalry and missile units to effectively operate from.

All this seems very interesting Watchman, but even without novelty of tactic, i for a part, am sure the Roman would have been beaten, at the end, by exaustion of man ressourses. account (by modern historians, not ''patriotic'' accounter of the period) talk about fielded armies of sometime a wooping 1 000 000 soldiers. Now, i'm sorry if i name no name, not that I want to hide, butmy history books are all home in Canada, so it's hard to make quotation when I'm in Bucharest, as i don't hold internet for a veeeeery trustworthy source!

Still, Chinese were not, as were gauls or less organised societies, a disorganised warband, but always were represented very organised, often using a ''phalanx'' type of... squadron (is the word appropriate?) anyhow, so clearly show a level of organisation rivaling the romans, for the mobility of troops. now, when you put basicly two armies on a par level of organisation, and maybe not using the same tactics, but, on the same ''tactical ability'', i do think rome would have been overcome by sheer number. Because ok, i take example at Cannae... terrible defeat for the roman, but througout (sorry for orthograpf!) chinese military history, considering that both side together formed roughly 150 000 soldiers, this was but a rear guard of an much MUCH massivier army (we should not forget that we're speaking about numbers approaching the million men... for the chinese side)

Resume... at the end of the world, pool of men wins the day... (IMHO)

You guys should probably do a search of the forums before gettin involved in another Chinese vs Roman thing again... :rolleyes:

well one of their best innovations was to combine the steppe composite bow with a trigger mechanism, so that even the average conscript can learn to use it within a very short amount of time....Think of all the extra time for drilling other important things that has enabled...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios

Oh I was making a very superficial comment regarding the testudo and possibly in hindsight I should have put a question mark at the end of the statement; so it didn't seem like I was arrogantly making a point but rather asking another question, for that I apologise. How do you think the Romans whould have gone against Chinese cavalry? or even the siege weaponry?

---

No need to apologise, i certainly didn't think you were being arrogant in anyway, in hindsight my response should have been put a little less blunty.

well all you would need is about 300 or so spartans per million troops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

You guys should probably do a search of the forums before gettin involved in another Chinese vs Roman thing again... :rolleyes:

---

Hrmmm I did one but I only found discussions on contact between the two worlds and opinions of eachother? If there is one on this question (or one similar) I apologise and was wondering if anyone can link me to it? I might be searching the wrong keywords, giving me limited results?

Contact between the two would have been extremely indirect at best, for reasons obvious enough when you look at the map of Eurasia and recall that practically speaking the Romans never held territory east of Syria and the Chinese west of the Tarim Basin...
Also assorted Central Asian powers, nomads plus the minor detail of Parthia/Sassanids in the way.

Silk Road FTW, though.

Should be noted that direct contact on the Silk Road was still rare since most trade wasn't direct and went through tons of middle men via sales and resales of goods.

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.

Though they did try to contact Rome and vice versa and heard rather funny rumors(Chinese live 400 hundred years and Rome was ruled by an ideal Republican Institution where people gave up power freely).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

All this seems very interesting Watchman, but even without novelty of tactic, i for a part, am sure the Roman would have been beaten, at the end, by exaustion of man ressourses. account (by modern historians, not ''patriotic'' accounter of the period) talk about fielded armies of sometime a wooping 1 000 000 soldiers. Now, i'm sorry if i name no name, not that I want to hide, butmy history books are all home in Canada, so it's hard to make quotation when I'm in Bucharest, as i don't hold internet for a veeeeery trustworthy source!

Still, Chinese were not, as were gauls or less organised societies, a disorganised warband, but always were represented very organised, often using a ''phalanx'' type of... squadron (is the word appropriate?) anyhow, so clearly show a level of organisation rivaling the romans, for the mobility of troops. now, when you put basicly two armies on a par level of organisation, and maybe not using the same tactics, but, on the same ''tactical ability'', i do think rome would have been overcome by sheer number. Because ok, i take example at Cannae... terrible defeat for the roman, but througout (sorry for orthograpf!) chinese military history, considering that both side together formed roughly 150 000 soldiers, this was but a rear guard of an much MUCH massivier army (we should not forget that we're speaking about numbers approaching the million men... for the chinese side)

Resume... at the end of the world, pool of men wins the day... (IMHO)

---

this means nothing the romans at their height had a population of 100 million people within their borders and had they wished so they could probably turn 10% (?) of it into military units

also i never heard the chinese using artillery the way ceaser claimed he used so in a pitched batle the chinese would have all of it´s formations disgruntled and disorganised by the scorpions onagers and other artillery

as for the way the chinese used their heavy infantry to create a strong base for cavalery and missiles to work from belisarius also used similar tactics with far less resources then the roman emperial time so i suspect the romans wouldn´t be caught off guard

furthermore the chinese huge army would represent a big burden to feed and have available water while going trough euroasia so it´s very likely that such a burden would undoudabtly end up with civil strifes and rebellions in china

imho it would all end up in who the generals where and how well both societies where willing to endure the costs of a such a war and in this regards i don´t remember the chinese having the same type of experience as the romans did in the punic war

also roman politicians seem a bit better in persuading foreign powers to help them and the mauryan empire would probably end up taking the roman side because seriously they had faced the sassanids and chinese more often then the chinese and therefore they would probably have more to gain by suporting the romans also the nomadic tribes could probably also benefit more from siding with the romans so overall it´s a war the chinese couldn´t win imho even tough the batles would be tough and dificult for the romans (makes litle sence ? yes i know but from my point of view even if the romans would have alot of dificulties winning the 1st batles they would place themselfs in a position where they couldn´t loose)

reason for it? the romans where quicker to adjust and adopt new tactics and weapons then the chinese

Mauryans faced the Sassanids? That must have been difficult when the two nations existed hundreds of years apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

furthermore the chinese huge army would represent a big burden to feed and have available water while going trough euroasia so it´s very likely that such a burden would undoudabtly end up with civil strifes and rebellions in china

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

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 WinsingtonIII

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.

---

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

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.

---

And I'm saying that the Chinese were equally expansionistic.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Nope :-p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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.

---

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 antisocialmunky

And I'm saying that the Chinese were equally expansionistic.

---

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.

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).

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.

---

I was merely clarifying to make sure you understand the real point I was trying to make

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.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Yeah.... dude, heroin is serious stuff. You might want to check out Requiem for a Dream and give it a watch.

---

That's a hardcore movie. I was like "wth" at the ending scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

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...

---

Add to that heart and kindey problems, danger of choaking in vomit while unconcious and heightend risk of infections

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:

Quote:

---

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://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

I didn't know the Mediterranean could support so many people at that time period.

---

I don't know about the Mediterranean, but I do know that the argiculutrural production of the Belgae was about three times higher than during the Middle Ages. IIRC the production was only surpassed somewhere around 1800. (According to JANSSENS, "De Oude Belgen")

If anything, the land quality would have been much higher back then and more productive than it is now if you look at old cultural hearths like the Levant and Mesopotamia where highly advanced civilization has existed and intensive agriculture has been practiced since pre-history. The land has been fairly screwed up by war/overuse/salinization/deforestation/pollution in those places.

Granted yield wise we have post-industrial agriculture and Green Revolution super crops that suck up petroleum based fertilizer so that kinda borks the actual numbers so its hard to compare actual crop yields.

If anything those population numbers are fairly conservative since the Han Dynasty census is for taxable population and the Rome one is the most conservative estimant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

I don't know about the Mediterranean, but I do know that the argiculutrural production of the Belgae was about three times higher than during the Middle Ages. IIRC the production was only surpassed somewhere around 1800. (According to JANSSENS, "De Oude Belgen")

---

Maybe this is true specifically for the Belgian lands for some strange reason, but overall it's well established that grain yields in Northern Europe were three times higher in the Central Middle Ages (10th/11th Century) than in Roman times. The Romans/their contemporaries still used the two field crop rotation, which is much less efficient than the three field crop rotation of the Middle Ages, and Medieval farmers also had access to the rigid horse collar (horses are much more efficient plow animals than oxen, and they were producing enough excess grain with the 3-field rotation to be able to feed horses), nailed horseshoes (it's hard to be efficient when your horse keeps breaking a hoof), and the iron plow. I can't find my notes so I cannot remember exactly what distinguished this plow from Roman-era plows, but I believe there was a design difference that made the plow more efficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

I didn't know the Mediterranean could support so many people at that time period.

---

It's important to realize that at its High Medieval peak in the late 13th/early 14th century (before the disastrous population crash of the 1300's) the European population reached over 80 million (and this isn't even including the Middle East, which had an even higher population), so for the Roman Empire to have a population of 45 million at its height isn't that surprising; in fact, compared to Medieval Europe and the Middle East, it was a small population.