Roman Empire vs Han China

Imperial Han China was also one of the most advanced nations on earth during that time. It dominated East Asia.

Gunpower was an important invention of Han China during that time. Yes, it was invented in China 2000 yrs ago. The Han dynasty also drove the Huns out of Asia. The Huns later destroyed the Western Roman Empire in Europe.

What would happen if these two great powers were located next to each other? Any thoughts folks?

IIRC the earlies evidence of gunpowder dates from Korea halfway the 7th century.

I've checked it: Gunpowder was already discovered during the Han dynasty, but it was only used for fireworks. In the 10th century the Chinese started to use it in warfare


Edited by MixcoatlToltecahtecuhtli

"It dominated East Asia."

But it didn't have to fight with other high-developed civilizations as the Roman did.

"Gunpower was an important invention of Han China during that time."

But they didn't use it, or at least didn't use it widely enough to make a big chagne in their military techonology, at the time.

". The Han dynasty also drove the Huns out of Asia. The Huns later destroyed the Western Roman Empire in Europe."

The Han repelled the Huns when it (the Han dynasty) was on its top, the Huns destroyed Western Empire when it (the Empire) was on its way to collapse.

It's hard to say who would win, but i think the Roman was better in combat

The Han actually had better weapons and a large number of army. Military tactics were also important in combats. Sun Zhe's Art of War was studied widely by military experts in the Han. It is also a required subject in American's West Point Military Academey today.

This kind of thread is like that cat that kept on coming back to its owner...

Consider the fact that you've got thousands of miles between the two empires, described primarily as desert, steppe and marshy floodplain.  Most of this is the domain of nomadic horsemen with a reputation for getting agitated by the presence of any strangers intruding upon their territory, most of whom are known for their skills of archery on horseback and hit-and-run tactics which can decimate said intruders.  Throw in a neighboring empire to one of the civilizations that makes ample use of the horse archers, in addition to heavily armored cavalry lancers and the desire to smash that neighbor's armies, and you have a virtual impossibility for that time.

Even if either army were to meet halfway, the whole journey would have to be taken on foot, and between the strains of said journey through all that desert and steppe and the constant beating they'd be taking from the natives, you'd likely end up with two squadrons standing off in the middle of the whole expanse end having the nomads rushing in to take what little remains of the spoils...

You can't really compare the Roman Empire's performance against the Huns with China. Sure the Huns were defeated by the Han Chinese, however, during that time, China was a powerful nation.

Still, it is really not certain that the huns were the same as those that were up against Han China.

With the vastness of Central Asia,the hunnic people and its types, limited or lack of written language, there is no concrete evidence of this. Only assumptions. Even so,it is not as if the same army was defeated by the Han and traveled across the Steppe to put fear in Europe. Look at the time span. They certainly never faced Attila and his Huns, who i personaly think overrated because they could not manage to finish off a frail and pale Roman Empire.

Originally posted by coolstorm Second of all, the Romans who were captured in the Battle of Carrhae against the Turks were sent to an Eastern Turkist city that was later captured by the Han.

They were captives, not Legions.

One thing is certain is that these things are decided in the field, and they never met.

  "Genetically, it has been proven that the Huns were the same as the Huns who lived in northern China and moved west"  

   Wrong it's impossible to prove it genetically, there aren't any Xiongnu skeletons.It has been proven in the last 50 years that huns and xiongnu are two differents people. Recent works and discoveries have to been checked too.

     "The Huns later destroyed the Western Roman Empire in Europe"

The huns did not destroyed romans empire, it's combined german nations invasions that brought the end of the west roman empire.
Huns were defeated by the allied forces of romans, wisigoths and franks at the battle of "Catalonic fields" in 451.Rome was still an independant faction at that time. 

 "Gunpower was an important invention of Han China during that time. Yes, it was invented in China 2000 yrs ago"

Firearms became important factor in warfare late in history:
-in 1526 at the battle of "Pavia" Charles Quint,  holy roman germanic emperor, beat the french whith matchlocks. It was the first time portative firearms were massively used in battle and brought victory in world history
-in 1346 at the battle of "Crecy" English had for the first time "mortar" but didn't used it because it was a siege weapon.
-in 1453 at the battle of "Castillon" French use culverins which wiped out all the english cavalry. It was the first time artillery was effective in pitched battle.

"Sun Zhe's Art of War was studied widely by military experts in the Han. It is also a required subject in American's West Point Military Academey today."

 Regarding the Sun Zi "Bing Fa".(It's Sun Zi not Sun Zhe). It 's only a compilation of aphorisms that were so obvious that romans didn't bother writting books on them. Plus, romans did have a lot of tactical manuals about the using of troops on battlefield, something chinese never had.
 
NB: i hope everyone will see the differences i put between stategy and tactic

"Second of all, the Romans who were captured in the Battle of Carrhae against the Turks were sent to an Eastern Turkist city that was later captured by the Han."

-in 53BC at the battle of "Carrhae" romans were defeated by parthians. There was no turks at this time. First turk's arrive in middle east 10th century 
 
 "The warring state mauals show highly advanced discipline and army deployment, with numerous formations both orthodox and unorthodox. Formations more numerous and complicated than the classical west and only later European armies developed during the early modern age."

War manuals are only theory, there are no chinese records of this time showing how chinese infantry were fighting. Actually we don't know anything about chinese tactics and formations.
If someone know any primary source that related in details (not something like: "he adopted the twin tigers formation", but something like: "spearmens were deployed in three ranks"....) just one formation, he just have to quote it. It must be chinese texts from the Han period:
206BC to 220AD(184AD in my opinion).
The roman "acies triplex" formation is one of the most complex formation of all times.
Generally speaking, romans were army's formation genius
Whatever, it's not because a formation is more complex that it is more effective: for exemple a unit whose deployement looks like a phoenix will never be  more effective than a macedonian phalanx which is a very simple formation. 
 

"enabling the Han to easily outproduce the Romans in weaponry ion both quality and quantity"

Rise in production only increase production not quality.
Superior tools ......prove it, when did chinese invent "pilum", "pavise".....

Regarding the army, roman's was only composed of highly trained professionnal soldiers, chinese army were composed of few highly trained soldiers and a majority of untrained and undisciplined drafted troops. The "superior tools and gears" of the han dynasty were only available to the professionnal soldiers.

"The Han actually had better weapons and a large number of army."

Regarding number of troops. it's pure folly to think that chinese armies were more numerous than roman's. Sima Qian is well known for exaggereting numbers. Actually, chinese generals fee were based on the number of enemies killed. They were quick to exaggerate their merits.

But more important, a so long period should not be considered to compare the effectiveness or two factions:
- West Han ( 206BC to 23BC )and East Han ( 25AD to 220AD) were totaly different military speaking, as well as roman's republic ( ??? to 27BC )and roman's empire ( 27BC to 476AD)
Except for Han Wudi, cavalry was not in use in chinese army, it was seen as a barbaric way of making war. Even Cao Cao during the three kingdoms period ( 184AD to 265AD) was criticized for using steppe cavalry mercenaries.

  As long as we don't know anythings about Han chinese way of infantry fighting, we won't be able to know which of the two would prevail. Historians can't allow themself to have biased point of view.

Only one things for sure, they both had great army.

 "How would the Romans be able to put more manpower on the field than theHan?"

I only meaned that Han wouldn't have outnumbered a lot roman's armies. At his peack roman had twenty eight  legions permanently mobilized.( at least 336 000 mens) which mean they could have rise bigger army if needed. 

Assuming that the population of the empire was approx. 25,000,000 at the time how many people could they mobilize? I'd say 12,000,000 mere men, out of which let's say 6,000,000 of military age. So there was the necessary manpower to field large armies. Then again one had to feed the army and provide equipment, arms and officers for them. Most of the times that was the most difficult task. It's better to have a smaller, well organized, trained and equiped army than a large unorganized and badly equiped one. (See Greco-Persian wars for examples)