The halberd isn't much of a weapon and is built around specific types of combat; it came into bigger play in Europe during a time when shields had been phasing out, and was used largely in what were more or less single duels (much like how the period Chinese would have fought). Urnamma mentions some good weapons the Chinese didn't have; the armor splitting falx for one would be an utter nightmare. The falcata too. The way the Chinese fought was vastly out-dated in the west. Celts had once fought a similar way, but had long since dropped it. Why? Because organized units and regimentalism made individual combat irrelevant. While duels still happened, mass combat was no longer based around it, because it was completely inappropriate for fighting a regiment working as a unit (so we see then Celts introducing their standards, horns for commands, etc.). Until then, we see Celts expansions almost stop utterly, even against enemies they were superior in number to. After they began using then-modern regiment tactics, they conquer the Po valley, obliterate early Roman armies and sack the city, and marched into Greece and beat the tar out of Hellenic armies (and totally annihilated the army of Macedonia) the whole way to Delphi (at times larger than their own), fighting largely the way they always had, but now supporting one another more effectively. Lack of organized units and focusing on personal combat would render them ineffective in a melee against most ancient western armies. Ultimately, without historical evidence of any combat between the two, predicting an outcome is dicey at best. There are far too many factors; morale, supply, quality of equipment, allies/mercenaries (like either one went so far to an opposing territory with no aide? No pathfinders, no local mercenary companies, etc.), tactics, skill of the commanders, individual skill and experience of soldiers, etc. The whole argument is completely asinine.