Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Anthrophobia]

Where do these figures come from? What do you mean by "cut through wrought iron"?

I have already posted it in my previous post, read back.

Please, do we have any verifiable examples of swords cutting through metal armor? It is being discussed here as if it were scientific fact.

Obiously the fact that I posted hints at the point that they can't go through metal armor.

Slashing or cutting usually involves some draw-cutting or back and forth sawing motion, while chopping does not necessitate this motion

If that is what slashing or cutting means, then yes, the dao does not slash or cut, considering that it only has one blade.

The loss of a man in a nomad society weighs much more, because he is not only a warrior, but also a family father, who gives protection to his wife(s) and numerous children. Thus, human losses can be socially less tolerated than in sedentary societies, especially those which follow the concept of a standing army, where the negative repercussions to the rest of the society are at a minimum.

Yes, it does weigh much more. But then again, horse nomads tend to lose less people in the first place. As I stated, the XiongNu(although still sexist) culture allows a widow to still be successful if her husband dies. Sendentary societies do not. What is more important is that sedentary societies have what we call the "supply line", making it increasingly hard for them to strike at a nomadic horse army. Whereas a nomadic horse army does not have this problem and can thus even outnumber sedentary armies through increased manueverability/choosing the battle sights.

It is not if a nomad is living from the air. In case of defeat, he can get away with his horse, but his cattle will be left behind, since cattle is not moving much faster than even a walking man. But without cattle, his basis of life, he is practically dead.

And if the nomads keep the cattle far behind the front, it is always in danger of being seized by another group. In any case, the proportion of covering troops for his cattle, wife and children must be much greater than in sedentary societies, because of the complete lack of fortifications.

No, a nomadic societies manueverability do not lie in the idea that their movable village can "flee" on sight of the sedentary army. It's strength is the fact that its constant movement means that a sedentary army would not know where to attack in the first place. In retrospect any nomadic society has the advantage that they plan the invasion of a city a decade beforehand and fully expect that the city will still be there a decade after.

I would rather say it is the other way round. In a sedentary, agricultural society there is better care for the wife and children and of killed, because other relatives are usually living in the same village to take care of them. In nomad society, where tens of thousand people move from pasture to pasture over large stretches of land, the risk of losing touch, locally and emotionally, to relatives is far greater.

Actually, it is the custom of the XiongNu to marry the wife with her son if the husband dies(yes, it is pretty messed up in our present culture). Even if she is a widow, she is still allowed to do typical "manwork" without being looked down upon. This is something rarely seen in sedentary societies in which widows can't find a decent job.

I think you may be under te mistaken premise that the steppe is a void place which enough space to go anywhere any time. Kind of moon, only with air to breath. In fact, nomad movement are subject to a strict rhythm and that with a good reason. Nomads move from summer to winter pasture, from spring to spring with their cattle, so if a group gets defeated at the fringe of the steppe by a sedentary society, they just CAN'T retreat to any place on the steppe to their liking, but have to respect the movements of all other tribes, being in circular motion. If not, then another round of fighting breaks out immediately.

I did not say they can go ANYWHERE, but they can choose the different pastures available, and sedentary armies can only depend on luck in order to find a nomadic village to pillage.

In a word, nomad societies are not at all as mobile as you may think. The Han were very well confronting an enemy who had his own strategical and tactical worries and limitations. The nomad bonus to Han China is less than you might think, more so, since it was the only real enemy, and the Han had therefore the luxury of concentrating the deployment of their forces, the training, weepons and equipment of their troops, on a single type of enemy. Rome, in contrast, had to build up an army which could cope with all types of enemies

As I said, this idea is double standard. Is Rome fighting against Carthage just Rome fighting against Rome. Is Rome fighting against Egypt the same as Rome fighting against Rome. Just because China kept its lands does not mean that all its battles are mute. Each Chinese dynasty the Han fought were as different from each other as Rome to Egypt. By your judgement there is NO WAY that any war the Han took was against a foreign power since all its lands are within the present Chinese border. Even the nomadic XiongNu are within the present Chinese border(but also Mongolia and Russia). The Han themselves obviously did not think that the XiongNu were their only worthy enemy, as can be seen by how their history looked with respect at the Warring States period as well as XiangYu of Chu.

The warring states are a zero-sum-consideration, and therefore not really relevant for any assessment of Han military might. What the one Chinese state wins in military glory and skill, the other necessarily loses.

Again, by that same judgement you might as well say that Rome never fought against a foreign power either(except in certain cases such as Germany or Parthia) due to that everybody it fought is a part of the Roman empire, is it not? The Han dynasty fought "higher civilizations" from the Chosun and the NanYue to more than fifty states in Central Asia, each with their own massive cities and technologies as demanded by climate.

If the Greek city-states had been forever battling among themselves, no historian would have realised the full military potential of the Greek hoplite armies. Yes, one could have made general inferences from the general level of warfare, but the real evidence for the military potential of the Greek city-states only came when they did beat the Persian superpower repeatedly and, overall, convincingly.

On the contrary if Greek Macedonia kept its lands more people would consider Persia vs Greece the same as Greece vs Greece, would they not?

Such 'proof'', however, lacks in the case of Han China almost completely. The first high civilisations with which the Chinese had to deal with, were the Arabians in 751 and that resulted promptly in a defeat.

What an unfair comparison. Not only was Rome long gone by then(so the battle is mute in this case), but the Chinese were outnumbered 4 to 1, maybe even eight to one, since most of their allies turned sides.
Not only that but it also ignores the fact that Tang also had their own victories over the Arabs as well. You win when you're powerful and you lose when you're not. Power in countries change over time, so just because you lost to one country doesn't make you militarily weaker than that country. Anyway, here's the example of Tang victories before/after Talas over the same opponent, as well as Talas itself.

The first encounter was in 715· When Arabs under Qutaiba invades Ferghana, he install a new king called Alutâr Qutaiba also raided Kashgar and Arab sources claim that he ravaged the surrounding until the "King of China"(perhaps the governor of that region) agreed to pay him ransom for his withdrawal. The old King of Ferghana escaped to Tang and the next year the Tang sent 10,000 troops under Chang Hiao sung from Kucha to Ferghana. He then defeated the Arab puppet Alutâr who escaped to the countrysides. Tang source claim that the Arab and Tubo occupation there was ended by the Tang forces, but the Arab and Tubo force there at this time was probably not large, since there happen just to be a purge in the islamic world in which Quitaiba revolts and was killed by his troops just before the Tang forces entered Ferghana.
The second skirmish is in 717, the caliph Suleiman tried to sent embassies to the central asian kingdoms to convert to Islam. He sent a general with an army and joined the Türgis and Tubo armies to besiege the city of Aksu and other parts of Tang western protectorates. The Tang ordered the vassal Western Turkic qaghan Arsïla Hsien, to attack the enemy. The alliance was routed and the Muslims escaped back to Tashkent. The Muslim army again is probably not that large, a few thousand at most. While the Tang force is composed mainly of Turkic troops.
Then comes Talas, this sticks out so much because the Arab force was actually large this time, although no sources record the size. Some modern historians think it was around 70,000.
The last mention of encounter was in 801, when Tang and Nan Zhao troops defeated the Tubo and reported to capture Arab troops in them. We do not know whether this is an alliance or the Arabs are simply captured by the Tubo in war and used as Auxiliars.

Again, I am not saying that Han > Rome, nor am I saying that Rome > Han. I just want some respect for the abilities of the opposing army. Just because the Roman army "rocks" does not equate with the idea that the Han army is composed of untrained peasants that can only win be sheer force of numbers.