Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Anthrophobia]

Sorry, Anthrophobia!

"Back then a monarchy does no equate with evil as they do in many countries today..."

This is how the quote should have looked like. My fault. My point was not to imply that you were anti-democratic, which i don't believe. It's just that the majority of people actually living in monarchies does not equate monarchy with evil, rather, we take pride not only in being citizens, but also being Loyal Subjects to our Soverreigns.

Were would Spanish democracy have been today without the heroic actions of His Majesty Juan Carlos, for instance?

As a staunch monarchist myself, i fully subscribe to your thesis that a strong monarch is the best alternative where the tecnology and infrastructure for real democracy is wanting.

It's ok, I misunderstood what u meant. Now that we are talking about government, I would like to point out an interesting comparison between Roman/Han government. The Roman dynasties have a much shorter length than Chinese dynasties, but each transgression from one Roman dynasty to another is far less chaotic/harmful to the nation than any Chinese dynasty, whose civil war may last more than several generations. Perhaps that could be a result of the difference between a bureaucratic theocracy and a semi-democratic oligarchy?

[Tarbicus]

we take pride not only in being citizens, but also being Loyal Subjects to our Soverreigns. Very Happy

Well, that may be the case with our continental brethren, but not 100% accurate here in the UK. There are still those of us more allegiant to elected Parliament than the Crown, although our elected representatives are getting a bit of a whupping right now. If the alleged plots to oust Harold Wilson in a military coup had succeded, with Lord Mounbatten being put in charge, we would have possibly seen civil war here thirty years ago.

[Robert Vermaat]

People, a word of warning.

Either get back to Han China vs. Rome, or this thread will be relegated to the OT section.

I'm not sure either if this would not be better off there, since it's all pure speculation anyway.

[Tarbicus]

Sorry.

[Robert Vermaat]

Grrr :x

[Chariovalda]

Thanks Valerius, the thread was getting a bit derailed there...though I would suggest that "Rome versus Han" ought to include a look at the political systems as well as equipment, tactics, economy and demographics...

Anyway, I did some research during the last couple of days and stumbled upon many Han vs Rome threads. Most are boring as hell, since they apparently act as a focus for European-American and Chinese-American ethnic fanboyism.

However, is this thread is to produce an interesting "what-if" speculation and a piece of illuminating comparative history, I suggest both sides (Romanophiles and Sinophiles) do a bit of research. The only one who seems to be combining some knowledge of both sides with a degree of objectivity here is Stefan. It is much harder to find a level of factual information about the Han Chinese than about the Romans, but if you look around you can certainly find something:

Asian archery, with a stress on Chinese archery (including the reconstruction of a Qin- and a later Han-era crossbow):
http://www.atarn.org/frameindex.htm

Han metallurgy:
http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EncIt/EncIt.html

(Later) Han military organisation:
http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decr ... l#military

Conversely, a bit of advice to the Han side. The same arguments always prop up in Han vs Rome threads (on both sides) but the Han side has a tendency of putting forward claims (apart from the really ridiculous ones) that are, at the very least, disputable. For instance, one that I've seen Rick (Anthrophobia) use is that Han agriculture was vastly more productive than Roman agriculture, because the Han had yields of 1:10 and the Romans of 1:2.5, meaning that the Han harvested 10 seeds for every one sown, and the Romans just 2.5.
Ahem...a recent figure I've seen for Roman agricultural yields was 1:8 (though I would love to know, is that an estimated Imperial average, or an average in the Mediterranean provinces, or what?). The low yields mentioned may be based on some low figures from early medieval Europe (I've seen figures of 1:3 and 1:4), and not bothering much with the niceties of the impact of climate, soil etc. As for the Han figure, I understood it's based on literary evidence; I personally wonder whether it was really an average, an ideal or a real, if maximal, probability.

Another thing is the draw weight of Han crossbows. Rick cheerfully mentions 350 pounds as typical, and I presume again based on literary references.
Personally, I would prefer data based on archaeological finds and practical tests with reconstructed bows. Two members of the Atarn forum had ancient Chinese crossbows reconstructed, and these had draw weights of respectively 60 and 55 pounds. Stephen Selby, the author of a book on Chinese archery, did intend to have a more powerful one made with a draw weight of 100 pounds (I sure hope this was done and that he will publish the results), but all three figures are still a far cry from 350.

Finally, a little point regarding the "fifty Central Asian oasis states" that are often mentioned to prove that, yes, Han China faced more powerful enemies than just the Xiong-Nu. Those fifty states? The largest of those, Ferghana, was a respectable kingdom with, according to Chinese sources, 300,000 people. That would make it a (potential) opponent of the order of magnitude of Dacia, which is not inconsiderable. However, all the others, with the exception of Khotan and Kashgar which were about the size of a respectable Greek polis (Corinth, Athens before its imperial era) were tiny. And I really mean tiny: they included such powerhouses of the ancient world like Karghalik (about 10,000 inhabitants), Turfan (about 4,000 inhabitants), and Dere (a whopping 670 people).
The states of Nan-Yue and Choson sound like more formidable opponents, though I suspect not enough is known about them to make a proper assessment of their strength; from what I've read they sure succumbed easily enough, but then again, Mauretania was easily annexed by Nero and Trajan crushed Dacia like a bug.

The lesson is: always check your supposed facts, and if they are either uncertain or don't support your case, don't mention them.

As for me? I want both a manuballista AND a reconstructed Qin or Han crossbow, by Mithras! :wink:

[conon394]

The largest of those, Ferghana, was a respectable kingdom with, according to Chinese sources, 300,000 people. That would make it a (potential) opponent of the order of magnitude of Dacia, which is not inconsiderable. However, all the others, with the exception of Khotan and Kashgar which were about the size of a respectable Greek polis (Corinth, Athens before its imperial era) were tiny.

Actually at 300,000 (I presume total population?) Ferghana would only be roughly the size of Classscal Athens, really a bit smaller...

[Chariovalda]

Population estimates are always a bit tricky, but Peter Connolly and Hazel Dodge, in their "The Ancient City. Life in Classical Athens and Rome" give an estimate of about 260,000 people for Athens prior to the Peloponnesian War (180,000 citizens and 80,000 perioikoi).
Hmm...including the slaves, you may be right, even if it would make Ferghana's reputed population to be only slightly smaller than Athens.

Anyway, as ancient states went, it wasn't small. But neither was it large, and it was a bit of a pygmy, both in terms of population and military resources, compared to the Han Empire.

[conon394]

Population estimates are always a bit tricky, but Peter Connolly and Hazel Dodge, in their "The Ancient City. Life in Classical Athens and Rome" give an estimate of about 260,000 people for Athens prior to the Peloponnesian War (180,000 citizens and 80,000 perioikoi).

I prefer M. H. Hanson’s estimate of 200,000 citizens for the period directly prior to the Peloponnesian War. Even so I think Hanson also understestes the effective population by failing to include the population of ‘quasi-citizens’ or second class citizens/residents in Athenian colonies, and territories like Plataia or Erythrai.

Hmm...including the slaves, you may be right, even if it would make Ferghana's reputed population to be only slightly smaller than Athens.

I would defiantly include slaves, unlike Chios or Sparta the Athenian slave population never proved to be a threat to Athens and in fact at almost every crises the democracy was able to draw on its slave population as a source of sailors and soldiers…

or instance, one that I've seen Rick (Anthrophobia) use is that Han agriculture was vastly more productive than Roman agriculture, because the Han had yields of 1:10 and the Romans of 1:2.5, meaning that the Han harvested 10 seeds for every one sown, and the Romans just 2.5.

Ahem...a recent figure I've seen for Roman agricultural yields was 1:8 (though I would love to know, is that an estimated Imperial average, or an average in the Mediterranean provinces, or what?). The low yields mentioned may be based on some low figures from early medieval Europe (I've seen figures of 1:3 and 1:4), and not bothering much with the niceties of the impact of climate, soil etc. As for the Han figure, I understood it's based on literary evidence; I personally wonder whether it was really an average, an ideal or a real, if maximal, probability.

I agree…

The 2.5:1 ratio from my understanding is (a rather low) number for Carolingian France.
The papers/articles I have read suggest 10:1 for Egypt; 6-5:1 for Rome in good soils (and maybe higher); Even Attica (hardly the bread basket of the Classical World) is usually pegged at between 3:1 and 4:1.

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks Valerius, the thread was getting a bit derailed there...

My pleasure entirely.

Trajan crushed Dacia like a bug.

Well.... it took several swats to kill that bug, didn't it? Shall we say a big bug? Really really big? :twisted:

Karghalik (about 10,000 inhabitants), Turfan (about 4,000 inhabitants), and Dere (a whopping 670 people).
The states of Nan-Yue and Choson

Tremble, oh great nation of the Han, for these untold masses!!!

But seriously, maybe even a few of these villages could make trouble enough for the Han borders, seeing that the terrain would make it difficult to 'search and destroy' them?

[Chariovalda]

Trajan crushed Dacia like a bug.

Well.... it took several swats to kill that bug, didn't it? Shall we say a big bug? Really really big? :twisted:

Alright then, a biggish bug. Quite hairy too. :wink:

Karghalik (about 10,000 inhabitants), Turfan (about 4,000 inhabitants), and Dere (a whopping 670 people).
The states of Nan-Yue and Choson

Tremble, oh great nation of the Han, for these untold masses!!!

But seriously, maybe even a few of these villages could make trouble enough for the Han borders, seeing that the terrain would make it difficult to 'search and destroy' them?

Well, actually the oasis states of the Tarim basin were sort of rather vulnerable. Oasis farmers are not exactly known for their mobility. Logistics would have been a major problem for the Han, although they could operate out of the western end of the Gansu corridor.
Chinese sources refer several times to really small armies - hundreds or thousands - being sent to the oasis states. There are sometimes also references to larger armies operating in the "Western Regions", which are either inflated figures or evidence of a very well-organised logistical apparatus. Both are possible, I think (and there's a third option, those armies being partly or even largely composed of natives).

"In the first yongyuan year [89 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the General-in-Chief Dou Xian had a great victory over the Xiongnu. In the second year [90 CE], (Dou) Xian sent Deputy Commandant Yan Pan, at the head of more than 2,000 cavalry, on a surprise attack against Yiwu (Hami), which he conquered."
...
In the second yanguang year [123 CE], the Governor of Dunhuang, Zhang Dang presented a report setting out three plans:

“I believe that the king of the Huyan [clan] of the Northern Savages (the Northern Xiongnu) frequently circulates on inspection between Pulei (Barkol) and Lake Qin. He has imposed his rule on the Western Regions and united them to raid and pillage. We should assemble more than 2,000 officers and soldiers taken from Jiuquan (Suzhou) and its dependent kingdoms at the Gunlun frontier-pass.

They should immediately attack the Huyan [clan’s] king, and cut him off from his base. Therefore, 5,000 soldiers should be sent from Shanshan (Charkhlik) to restrain the tribe of Further Jushi (Jimasa). This is the best plan.

If we cannot send an army, a Division Commander with five hundred officers and men supplied with farm draft cattle, grain, and provisions by the four commanderies [of Hexi], should occupy Liuzhong (Lukchun). This is the middle-ranking plan.

If even that can’t be done, then the town of Jiaohe (Yarkhoto, 20 li west of Turfan) must be abandoned, and [the people of] Shanshan (Charkhlik), and other places, be gathered together and taken within the Barrier. This is the worst plan.â€

[Robert Vermaat]

Nice analysis.

By the way, I did run into an interesting site on Chinese siegecraft:
[url:2z1jj8zs]http://authors.history-forum.com/liang_jieming/chinesesiegewarfare/[/url]

Cooll!@!!

[Tarbicus]

Related, but not in terms of military adversaries, more allies:

[url:2346u097]http://english.people.com.cn/200512/20/eng20051220_229569.html[/url]

"It is quite obvious to suppose that Rome gained information about China and about their special, complicated structure of frontier defence. Could the idea of the strong limes not come from the well-tried system of China?" Visy added.

Xu Weimin, director of the Department of History of Northwest China University, said that during the 400 years from the 3rd century BC to the 2nd century AD, lots of Chinese silk was transported to the western countries via the Silk Road. It is natural that the information about the Great Wall was spread to the Rome Empire.

The Great Wall was first built in the 7th century BC, and was repaired, enlarged and rebuilt in many dynasties. In the Han Dynasty, the western most part of the Great Wall was extended to the Lop Nur in today's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region to protect the Silk Road.

Chen Yongzhi, vice director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, said the exchanges between the east and west started earlier than believed. In addition to silk, the information about the Great Wall was also exchanged.

"It's convincing that the Roman Limes and the Great Wall have some 'blood relationship'," Chen added.

[Dan Howard]

What evidence does he cite to demonstrate that info about the Great Wall was exchanged with the Romans?

[Tarbicus]

No idea Dan, I merely posted it. From what I can tell there are similar features of construction of the forts, but there seem to be a few groups of archaeologists from different countries who are finding constructional similarities in both them and the walls.

This is an interesting lecture of 1907:
Text of the 1907 Romanes Lecture on the subject of FRONTIERS by Lord Curzon of Kedleston, Viceroy of India (1898-1905) and British Foreign Secretary 1919-24)
Page 3 compares the functional attributes of the Great Wall of China and the Roman limes as being for the same purpose; Defence, not delimitation.

According to this PDF the Roman limes were far less ambitious, but it does mention the limes were started in 9CE, and we know what happened to Varus' legions then, which coincides with more intensive trade links with China? Who knows?