Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Felix]

interesting argument guys. Really a neat topic, and one that I have thought about alot myself.

But let's focus on the generalship. While Rome had great generals, even military geniuses for all time such as Gaius Caesar, Scipio, and others, keep in mind that China had a much more regular system of generalship. The system from the Warring States period would have most likely carried over, with professional generals, drawn from a seperate class than the aristrocracy leading their men.

While I am not trying to demean the average Roman general, I believe that the Chinese generals were of a higher average caliber, discounting the occasional geniuses on both sides.

Clearly, the writings of Sun Tzu are of a much more pragmatic nature than anything I've read from ancient Rome. Most of the famous Roman generals seemed to believe that battles are won by courage and force of will, since it worked for them so well.

Concepts such as 'knowing when to fight, and when not to fight' were deemed absurd in Rome, and derided even when restraint was necessary. I think the Chinese generals would make the Romans pay heavily for any mistakes.

I agree that the pragmatic approach to warfare is very powerful; and in a limited war is likely to be successful. It might be a limitation in a more "total" war, should such a thing have occured. Under conditions of a more total war, pragmatism might be trumped by fanatical devotion to a cause. This is one idea that Carthage, for one case, never quite understood until too late - compromise doesn't work with a foe whose goal is your total destruction. A number of Chinese adages assume, for example, that the enemy army and country might be readily assimilated into your empire. This was true among the various Warring states; but outsiders like Romans would have been a different matter.