When Greece meets China...

**Maion Maroneios** · 05-09-2008, 16:08

I'm immensely grateful to you, Elmetiacos! This was trully great, I hope people can keep information coming in. I'm mostly interested in how the Greeks(Wusun?) saw the Chinese and vice-versa.

I saw somewhere on the site you posted that the Chinese saw the Greeks (Baktrians) as ''people poor in the use of arms and afraid of battle, but clever at commerce''. How would the Greeks describe the Chinese? Where they (Chinese) really that better at use of arms?

**Vorian** · 05-09-2008, 17:13

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

I'm immensely grateful to you, Elmetiacos! This was trully great, I hope people can keep information coming in. I'm mostly interested in how the Greeks(Wusun?) saw the Chinese and vice-versa.

I saw somewhere on the site you posted that the Chinese saw the Greeks (Baktrians) as ''people poor in the use of arms and afraid of battle, but clever at commerce''. How would the Greeks describe the Chinese? Where they (Chinese) really that better at use of arms?

From my very limited knowledge of Chinese warfare, I am under the impression that the Chinese used a lot of horsemen, chariots,archers and swordsmen. Since they developed these forces cause they suited their geography, my guess is that they would be better in their own country.
The same goes for Greeks.

As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."

No offense to any Chinese here.

**Parallel Pain** · 05-09-2008, 18:12

Don't forget "lots of silk" or "steal our money with silk"

**Hooahguy** · 05-09-2008, 18:16

wheres Keravanos when you need him?

**keravnos** · 05-09-2008, 22:50

As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."

No offense to any Chinese here.

Actually, they did have knowledge of them and called them "Seres" or (people of the) silkworms. It wasn't meant as an offense, and I don't think it was ever received as such. To be fair, there wasn't china back then, and Qin was just starting the drive to unite it. This is 272, not 221 when it finally united it.

It has been suggested that the Baktrians had some influence in the chinese especially on the creation on the "terracota army" whose realism hadn't been seen before that time. That is uncertain. What isn't uncertain is the introduction by the IndoGreeks of the coppernickel standard which was first used in China before that. CopperNickel coins is what most people use in coinnage to this day. This suggests at least knowledge of one another.

Greeks were illustrious sea travellers as well. Reaching as far as present day Vietnam. Ptolemy, the Roman geographer of 2nd cent. CE mentions that. Archaeological evidence there confirms that there were greek trades there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oc_Eo

At the time of Ptolemy about 400 ships would make the voyage from Egypt to India and further on. Their crews and captains, were at the overwhelming majority greek even when living under the Romani. Using as a base the greek quarter (emporion or trade post) of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura

Unfortunately there is no evidene that shows that they reached mainland china by sea, even if a Chinese sea traveller speaks of people who resemble mediterranean born travellers when he reached present day Sri Lanka.

-edited for a clarification-

**satalexton** · 05-10-2008, 00:08

Originally Posted by Vorian

From my very limited knowledge of Chinese warfare, I am under the impression that the Chinese used a lot of horsemen, chariots,archers and swordsmen. Since they developed these forces cause they suited their geography, my guess is that they would be better in their own country.
The same goes for Greeks.

As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."

No offense to any Chinese here.

Actually at the time of the Western Han dynasty, which largely is evolved upon the Qin model, consists of lots of crossbowmen, archers of both mounted and foot variants and the infantry line is formed up using infantry armed with the 'ge' (works kinda like a halberd). Nearly everybody is armed with a sword as a side arm when the inevitable melee brawl ensues xD. Chariots, at that time were no longer used as a weapon, but more rather a mobile command post of sorts of the commander to read maps and give out orders and etc.

During the expedition against the Xiongnu, the forces Huoqubin led consist of 20,000 mounted infantry, each assigned 2 horses. They were trained to be self sufficient which reduces the need for resupply. Armed with a bow, crossbow, a 'ge' and a straight, single bladed sword, they fight both mounted and dismounted and are a deadly efficient killing machine, as seen how Liling took on 30,000 Xiongnu horsemen with 5000 troops (ok he cheated, he used the supply wagons as cover and used the repeating crossbow).

**chenkai11** · 05-10-2008, 02:18

I wish someday, some historians or scientists will make a simulation of battles on "what if western powers meets China". Especially to see Roman empire vs The Han or Tang dynasty, or Alexander the Great vs Qin Shi Huang or Cao Cao or Zhu Ge Liang. Two totally different warfare, strategy and arms.

That would be ...... I can't describe the feeling.

**craziii** · 05-10-2008, 02:52

there was a battle, forgot the name. where roman legions fought chinese mounted crossbows, needless to say the legions got owned by the crossbows. I can't find any detailed info on it, now I even forgot the name of the battle. still remember as it was the only recorded military encounter between romans + chinese. crossbows will wreak havoc on any heavy infantry base army.

**chenkai11** · 05-10-2008, 04:09

I dont' think the Romans engaged with the Chinese.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=37148

**craziii** · 05-10-2008, 06:26

that wasn't the battle I was refering to, I read of that battle just recently in EB it self. I just read it on the internet few years back, could very well be made up.

**chairman** · 05-10-2008, 06:28

That instance was discussed to quite some length on the EBII forums I think. However, most of the participants were very doubtful as to the truth of the story. However, there is good evidence for the possibility that some Roman soldiers did lose to a Chinese army. Here is what I know of the theory (plus my interpretation).

The Romans were a small (probably only a few hundred or thousand) contigent serving under either the Parthians or Xiongnu (I can't remember which), having been captured as prisoners from Marcus Antonius' expedition against the Parthians in 36 BC. As was customery at the time, the Parthians transferred the captured soldiers to positions on the far side of their empire, similar to Roman policy concerning auxillaries (eg. Sarmations in Britain). These Roman soldiers were then involved in a battle against a Han expeditionary force into central Asia. The Roman soldiers were only a small part of the army that they belonged to, but their exoticness caught the attention of the Chinese officials that oversaw the POWs from the expedition. They were settled in a town on the North-Western frontier in what is today Gansu province (which lies in a narrow mountain corridor between the Tibetan plateu and the Inner Mongolian steppes). Given the location of this village and the status of the settled Romans, they remained virtually untouched by outside events, as well as having few immigrants to that village. So today, the people of this area exhibit particularly western (aka Roman) features, such as eye color, facial features, hair color, foot shape, etc.

This is my interpretation of this theory, and I don't think that it is as impossible as some people have said. I agree that it is not absolute truth, since we don't have a narrative outline of the story. However, there is nothing particularly impossible about it either.

Some of the points that have been brought against this theory:

-the distance was too far for the Romans to have made the trip:

__counteroint: these were tough Roman soldiers, and many of them were themselves stationed far from their original homes in Italy, Gaul, Greece or wherever. Besides, this is entirely consistant with Parthian and Roman policy concerning auxilluries: post them far from where they came from.

-how could the population of this village have remained so pure for over 2000 years:

__many villages in China today remain relatively cut off from the outside world, whether that means all contact or just people immigrating. Part of this is due to a tradition in China of people not moving to different parts of the country very much. This is true today, and very much true back then. Also, this village is in a more remote part of China than is realized, rather than being in China Proper. It's hard to understand from our modern point of view hard rare it was for large changes in lower class demography to happen. And the village itself was very small for awhile so the influx of even a few hundred Romans would be enough to permanently alter the genetic imprint of the area.

Chairman