Out of pure interest...

[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...

[stratigos vasilios]

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.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

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

[stratigos vasilios]

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*

[satalexton]

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

[Andy1984]

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

[Watchman]

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... ) 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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[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)

[Megas Methuselah]

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

[satalexton]

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...

[stratigos vasilios]

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

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?

[Watchman]

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.

[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

[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.