Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Virgil]

. In conclusion, it can be seen that the superiority technology of the Han weapons and equipments is one of the reasons why the Han Army is military stronger than the Augustan legions.

I think you’re effectively at a disadvantage in knowledge of Roman weaponry and tactics. Romans generally used auxiliary or allied cavalry instead their own in combat. I doubt the adoption of slow-firing crossbows would be decisive in a combat situation where Romans had learned how to fight armies consisting heavily of missile wielding troops. After Carrhae they learned and learned well. The Romans weren’t ‘limited’ to the gladius, they deliberately chose it for it’s effectiveness in close-quarter combat.

… Because the Roman military tactics limit much of action to its elite heavy infantry, the Roman military will suffer as a result when facing the Chinese.

Typical wargamer approach to the essence of combat. You’ve missed a key and important point that subverts your assumption. After Carrhae the Romans learned and learned well on how to deal with Parthia’s ‘missile dominance’. They effectively fought against Parthians afterwards, even sacking the Parthian capital several times in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Tactics were much more complex than limiting it to ‘elite heavy infantry’, in fact in campaigns such as against the Dacians auxiliary troops—mounted and dismounted--played a large role in the fighting.

You’ve falsely assumed a one dimensional approach by the Roman army that closer research doesn’t agree with.

Here is something called Arrian’s Array which shows just how complex Roman formations were after two centuries of war with the Parthians. Note the high level of missile firing troops. See http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/ ... taxis.html

…The Han army is more skilled than the Augustan legions. …Their way of life is their training.
Thus, massed men and quick learned skills of the Chinese can easily defeat the selected few of the Romans.

Again your assumptions are incorrect. Romans regularly fought battles where they were outnumbered. Their strict close-order discipline and training of the legions even won the admiration of Parthian opponents. You assume Roman armies weren’t veterans of combat for some reason, and your dependence on the crossbow in this argument ignores the counter-missile approach of later Roman armies fighting against the—generally losing—Parthians.

How in essence is a Han army more skilled? As I’ve said most Roman armies were a mix of auxiliary and Roman soldiers with different skill sets from missile to mounted, none of that seems much different from the Han. You haven't even touched much on Roman training, discipline or skill.

]Although the Roman legions were respected and feared in the West, they would have met their match and be defeated in the East. Chinese technology, years ahead of other civilizations, was something the Romans would never have dreamed of. Chinese tactics, unheard of in the West, would have rendered the Roman ones useless. The size and the skill of the Roman army were inferior to the Chinese and those cannot hope to compete. It would have been an interesting match if the two superpowers ever met; history would be radically different.

I wouldn’t pat yourself on the back so soon. Frankly the Han themselves never met a formation even closely similar to a Roman army. You’ve made a lot of incorrect assumptions and ‘stacked the deck’ in the Han’s favor, not conceding any strength to the Roman army and accepting a simplistic view of the Roman army over the more complex approach they generally took against a skilled enemy.

Peter Li

Hmm, another nationalist Han v. Rome argument (they're all over the web.) Did you once post as Anthrophobia on simaqianstudio.com?

____
Frank