Out of pure interest...

[moonburn]

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

[bobbin]

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

[WinsingtonIII]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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

[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.

[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.

[WinsingtonIII]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

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

[Moros]

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.

[WinsingtonIII]

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."

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.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you there or in the other dozen previous threads on this topic.

[gamegeek2]

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).

[WinsingtonIII]

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

[Hax]

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?