Out of pure interest...

**antisocialmunky** · 04-24-2010, 05:42

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** · 04-24-2010, 07:34

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** · 04-24-2010, 07:43

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** · 04-24-2010, 13:42

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.

**antisocialmunky** · 04-24-2010, 14:34

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.

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