Could the Chinese crossbow pierce the Roman Scutum? If it can

>>3047795
I don't know much about china but I saw a program recently that showed that the Chinese crossbow had 4 times the drawback strength of the early medieval age crossbow

but I know how the history channel is 80% sensationalist garbage

>>3047795
>Han China.
>Conscript Army.

>Romans.
>Cavalry.

File: Roman armies developing after the Cimbri wars.png (163KB, 1902x1384px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1902x1384px

>>3047795
I honestly think the two would engage in a huge battle with Chinese numbers being so overwhelming that they both overtake Roman formations, while also losing such a large number that morale turns to shit. A bloody stalemate.

>>3048437
Lets say you have 10 legions fight against 10 chinese army of equivalent size, both sides lose ~50% of their men.

So they're left with 5 legions and 5 army.

The Chinese conscripts quickly create new armies since they all have training ~1-2 years training and one month training every year until they're around ~55 or so. The Roman empire cannot because they have no effective conscription system and no universal mandate of military training for all males >15 and < 55.

By sheer numbers Chinese would overwhelm the Roman empire. Even if the Roman army is 2x as better than Chinese and suffer 1/2 as much as damage, its still a loss for Roman empire due to the military structure and the system of governance that the Chinese have in place.

>>3047795
Depends on a lot.

At the proper range and angle they might get some penetration. However, if they get through the shield they still have to pierce the armor and that's rather unlikely.

As for an actual battle, again it depends. Who is fighting who, when and where. Rome as a habit had a relatively small army trained and equipped to a rather high quality. Before a series of rather brutal civil wars they had a rather sizeable reserve of potential recruits and veterans to reactivate if the situation calls for it.

What I can say for sure, after getting a decent look at one another neither side would be eager to start a fight.

Did both fear the Black Warrior?

>>3048682
Very much so. Which is why neither held Subsaharan africa

All these people mentioning constrips have clearly not studied the military of the Han Dynasty

Han Dynasty troops were mostly volunteers. And they were very mobile. In the Han Xiongnu war, the Han army used a lot of mounted infantry to catch up with and defeat nomadic troops, as well as utilizing tabors composed of chariots linked together to form a mobile fort. The Han dynasty was also known to field shock cavalry, mounted crossbowmen, and war chariots.

The Han dynasty army was in no way composed of peasant conscripts. They kept 2 main professional standing armies formed from volunteers. These were the northern and southern armies. The northern army had 5 regiments of seven thousand men each. In addition to these two main standing armies, conscripts and volunteer militias would be called up when necessary.

The only possible advantage that the Romans would have are their militaristic culture and technological advantage.

Although the previous Qin Dynasty was strictly Legalistic, Legalism had begun and would fall out of favor in the Han Dynasty. Although we remember Legalism as an emphasis on law and strict punishments, it also emphasised only two things: farming and war. As the militaristic emphasis has been downplayed this would give the Romans an advantage in morale and the such.

Another thing that has not been mentioned is that the Han Dynasty stuck around with the whole bronze age thing for a long time after rome had adopted iron and steel. This would give the Romans with their steel gladius and chainmail armor an advantage, but not as much as you would think. The Han dynasty and Ancient China in general, made advances in bronze working that was not matched by any other civilization at the time. There would certainly not have been any swords bending in combat sort of situation.

In the end however, due to Han Empire's superior maneuverability and their larger army they would win.

>>3048682
>>3048691
nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

South Africa was a bit of a bitch to get to. The Romans conquered most of the bits worth conquering. They poked at the south a bit but it looks like they found it too much trouble to actually get to.

>>3048723
Han softened on legalism, but still kept up most of the administrations legalism put in place. The early Han still kept the most of the conscription system in place. The later Han put in clauses like if you pay special tax you'll be free from military duties, they increased the age of which a person is recruited from 15 to ~20 mainly due to the fact that taxes and a strong standing army and the use of nomadic resources.

However they still had a conscript system in place. It was however quite more laxed than Qin system.

>>3047795
Romans would modify their equipment. They did this before, during the Dacian wars they added a ridge to the helmet to protect against the falx, and iirc during another war they added armour to their sword arm for added protection.

>>3048739
Didn't the Later Han also had household troops that were pretty much the armies of everyone involved in the 3 Kingdoms Debacle?

>>3048753
They were called retainers 賓客 (literally means guests). Basically they were people who lived on your property and you had to feed. But you could tell them to do stuff like....

If you were a merchant: Tell him to cover his face and at night smash the shop on the other side of the street.
If you were a politician: Tell him to cover his face at night and assassinate your political rival.

Or he could just help on the farm. Or if you were a nobleman or a general you could be rich enough to have a bunch of retainers how would accompany you into battle. And if you were important enough you could have a bunch of retainers and have buddies with a bunch of retainers and have an army.

>>3048772
BTW retainership in the Han Dynasty was a social contract and not legally binding. There were no government policies about retainership, however it was a prominent social institution. Retainers could serve as advisors, artisans, or just servants and were free to just leave their host if they wished to do so. However, there were social expectations placed on them and they were expected to and most often did share in the successes and sufferings of their host.

>>3048723
>All these people mentioning constrips have clearly not studied the military of the Han Dynasty
Universal conscription was only abolished during the Eastern Han. The Han had several military inventories such as the one found in the Donghai commandery.
http://historum.com/asian-history/45323-han-dynasty-donghai-military-inventory.html

At age 23,conscripts went through 2 years of training/deployment,while training the eight month of the year until they were 65.

The Eastern Han armies seem to be mostly composed of mercenaries.

>Another thing that has not been mentioned is that the Han Dynasty stuck around with the whole bronze age thing for a long time after rome had adopted iron and steel.
Wouldn't the Han have the advantage here?

The blast/cupola furnances was something the Romans lacked.

>>3048723
>Han dynasty didn't use steel/iron weapons
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel/cn.steelswords.htm

The Bronze weapon were pretty much a dying breed in around early Han. By mid/late Han, it was steel/iron weapons almost entirely. The state had entire iron/steel "factories" dedicated to pumping out wrong iron/steel. So to say the Han were not using iron/steel is "bit" misleading.

>chain mail
The Han were using lamellar with either iron/steel/leather. It all depended on how much you could afford/your status. The officers/cavalry were using the high quality plate/iron lamellar, the poor volunteers would use leather or iron or plates depending on how much they banked.

Still the difference between lamellar and chain mail wasn't that much in the overall effectiveness in combat.

>>3048791
I understand that and forgot to include that they did eventually make a full switch, only the Romans used it much earlier and depending on which era a conflict would take place, that would have given them an advatage. Thank you for pointing this out.

>>3048723
That would depend on how good of a Mongolian impression the Han can do.

From what I can see, the "wear them down for hours while denying the battle" tactic is not one they were fond of.

From what little I can see, it looks like the Han would be inclined to meet the Romans in proper battle and that would likely end poorly for them.

The heavily disciplined Romans would hold well past the expectations of the Han, which would likely lead to the Han committing to early and suffering for it.

The initial battle would likely result in a bloody but Roman victory.

The Han mounted infantry have a minor role in archery, until they make ample use of dedicated horse archers I doubt they would be as effective against Legionaries as you think.

The effectiveness and level of Roman equipment rose quite sharply from the period of the beginning of the Han to its decline and collapse. Depends heavily on what year.

>>3047795
>Mongols invade china, defeat Han and their crossbows
>Huns invade europe,defeated by Rome an its axuillaries

Makes you think?

>>3048807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu_War

Why do you think the Huns went to Europe in the first place?

File: 1491756255559.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>3048602
>>3048602

>>3048811
Because America defeated them?

>>3048802
Just imagine Battle of Carrhae, but with crossbows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

>>3047795
>Could the Chinese crossbow pierce the Roman Scutum?
If the theoretical equations are correct then they would have no trouble piercing the scutum.

The draw weight is substantiated by administrative records(Juyuan slips) and the powerstroke is derived from archaeological excavations.
https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=297785

>>3048818
The Chinese were not a nation of horse archers, they could never pull off a Carrhae. Carrhae happened because the Roman infantry could never close with their opponents. Chinese tactics were designed to fight against nomads from foot.

Also, steppe army successes against the Romans are overstated. In the end, the Romans smashed the Parthians so badly their dynasty fell from power.

>>3048829
I get it but you questioning the ability of mounted archers to defeat romans.

>>3048832
They could beat them, sure. Mounted archers were literally the best warriors on earth prior to line infantry. But they did not always win. The Persians were never an existential threat to Rome, and both major dynasties were eventually defeated.

>>3048829
Han dynasty had around ~250K cavalry.

They regularly fielded >50K cavalry forces and upwards of 100K cavalry against the Xiongnu in any single battle.

At their height, they had ~ 400K infantry + 250K cavalry.

Their greatest extent was near the edges of Kushan Empire.

To say the Chinese wouldn't use cavalry archers out of their ~250K cavalry is just plain ignorance, especially since the bulk of their cavalry were trained to be horse archers by the Xiongnu they captured.

>>3048845
Comparing Chinese horse archers to Mongolian ones is like comparing Byzantine horse archers to Turkish ones. They were inferior imitations.

>>3048832
Key difference, mounted infantry.

Their job is to shoot a few arrows then ride over and either poke them with their shank stick or get off and fight as infantry.

The bit after the few volleys of crossbow bolts is when the Han have a bad day and a large group of unhappy Romans get within shanking distance.

The roman usually encountered problems when dealing with the sort of folks who spent all day shooting tens if not hundreds of thousands of arrows at them all day.

Very different tactics.

>>3048848
>They were inferior imitations.
How could they be inferior imitations if they were mainly derived from steppe auxiliaries(Xiongnu,Xianbei,Wuhuan)?

>>3048848
I don't know why you keep using Mongolian as an example. The Han didn't fight the mongolians. They fought the Xiongnu and the confederacy. Mongolia wasn't a thing til after Han. Their strength came after Genghis Khan around the turn of 13th century onward. The Han/Xiongnu were about 1300-1500 years earlier.

>>3048602
>both sides lose 50% of there men

holy shit this never happens

theres this thing called morale, its the thing that makes you dodge when youre about to get hit by a car, people run, and they run a long time before casualty percentages are in double digits

depends entirely on logistics and grand strategy, neither had the capacity to actually wage a campaign against the other in any meaningful capacity, it would be caesar in britain tier.

the roman army was obviously better man for man, they could very easily cause a mass route if they do well, crazier shit has happened in history and to more disciplined soldiers than conscripts, but a battle won means nothing without some way to maintain supply lines.

>>3049224
I see the word conscripts thrown around a lot as if they're vastly inferior.

The conscripts in relation to China are more professional than the conscripts Romans had to throw up against the Carthage or the huns.

The conscripts in China had around 2 years worth of training and a month of training/experience each year. That easily outclasses any other conscript system of the world baring the modern conscript(or rather reserve) system most countries utilize.

As for combat experience, I'm pretty sure Roman legions on average saw more battles per lifetime than average Chinese conscripts. However the average Chinese conscripts would still have had one or two battles under their belt at these points in time. The Chinese mandatory service meant they serve some portion of the year on campaign. Since this was a rotational basis, many of their soldiers probably have some sort of experience in deployment/raids/etc.

So while Roman soldiers on average might have seen more battles and might have lived more as a professional, the Chinese conscripts wouldn't be fresh/green(that's only during extreme measures like the Qin did when they conscripted a huge chunk of its adult male population for its push to dominance during the warring states).

Then there's the actual Han professionals. The cavalry, the officers, etc.

From the records, the professional mixes with the conscripts so as to give the conscripts more experience in battles. This boosts their overall effectiveness in long run.

>>3048725
Sub saharan África is a spook

>>3048807
>Mongols invade china, defeat Han and their crossbows
Han defeated the Xiongnu and conquered the Mongolian steppe

File: 1499453543386.png (834KB, 1463x3639px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1463x3639px

>>3047795

File: 1499449174635.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>>3047795
>literacy
>feed its own people

Are you literally this delusional?

>>3048723
>There would certainly not have been any swords bending in combat sort of situation.
Correct. They would shatter. Bronze doesn't like bending.

Bronze is fucking bad for weaponry when compared even to iron or very, very, very poor steel. There's no getting around it.

>>3048832
>I get it but you questioning the ability of mounted archers to defeat romans.
Given how often the parthians got their capital sacked, he should.

>>3048848
They literally weren't used the same way. Go be a faggot somewhere else.

>>3049386
>As for combat experience, I'm pretty sure Roman legions on average saw more battles per lifetime than average Chinese conscripts. However the average Chinese conscripts would still have had one or two battles under their belt at these points in time.

Post-marian legionaries were signed up for 20 years. The army was their adult life.

>>3047795
If the battle was of equal numbers, the Romans take it I think.

>>3052021
that guy is just damage controlling, probably chinese. Romans had the most professional military in the world, including China.

Id like to see those conscripts arrive at a location midday, have the most advanced fort in the world built that night, and be sleeping behind walls, trenches, and even moats by the time its dark. And then to wake up, tear it all down, move out, arrive at a new location and do the whole thing again. Oh and with no slaves or pack animals, everything is carried by the the soldiers.

Romans were in a whole other league from everyone else when it came to being a professional military. All modern militaries model themselves after the "career soldier" setup of the romans.

File: Han-Xiongnu Wars.jpg (89KB, 329x492px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 329x492px

>>3048807
>China went into the heart of Xiongnu Steppenigger Territory and wrecked them so hard, every Mongolic/Turkic Shit tribe started migrating westwards.

>Romans can't into cavalry, get wrecked in Carrhae, and have Emperors killed during Invasions of steppenig-founded Persianate Empires.
>Byzantines avoided the Mongol Invasion by sucking their dick.

>>3052124
you know rome also has plenty of "went into horsefucker territory and literally genocided some horsefuckers" episodes just like China, I know youre being bias but still, you think Carrhae is an accurate representation of a typical roman/persian clash and this is adorable. The romans embarrassed the persians just as much as the persians embarrassed the romans, it had more to do with leadership, logistics and tactics than army quality.

Romans frequently defeated horsearchers. Trajan particularly pushed their shit in, have you seen his northern borders? That was all horsefucker territory.

>>3052021
>Post-marian legionaries were signed up for 20 years. The army was their adult life.
The professional of Han soldiers would be same too, except they'd start from ~15+ to anywhere around 50+ in the early Han era and around 20+ from mid/late era.

They too would have around 20-30 years of effective adult military life.

>>3052097
Your nationalism is showing. "the most advanced forts in the world built in night"

Literally a rudimentary basic camp site is not in any way the most advanced. If such were the case, there wouldn't be anything to improve upon.

These forts became one of the most advanced forts after long developments. The overnight version is a basic skeleton version. The month/year/perma long fort is where it became quite advanced.

>>3052152
Chill m8, I know that. We cherrypicking shitposting here.

>>3047795
Pfft, when it came to archery the Scythians were superior, they used a very effective arrow poison made from wolfbane and human faeces.

>>3052152
Rome Parthian war was a stalemate. The reason it didn't conclude was due to Sassanids,

Sassanids took the eastern Mediterranean from the Rome and they never were able to take it back. On the whole Rome vs Persian, it was mostly a defensive war on Roman front. They kept losing more and more lands.

The Rome embarassing the Persians sounds nice in vacuum but in actual history, Rome has nothing on Sassanids.

The only saving grace for Rome was when Sassanids were conquered, by the Muslims. Then the Muslims continued the Persian conquest of Roman empire.

There is nothing that shows Rome were effective against the Parthian horse archers, the Persians, nor the Muslims.

>>3052387
Parthians were romes mexican bandits

>>3052387
This is flase. The Persians did nothing of the sort, unless you count the lands they took immediately before getting blown out and having to give them all back.

>>3048602
You are fucking retarded. Study ancient wars (or wars in general) way more, casualties from combat are basically irrelevant, and in fact battles themselves don't even really matter either. What matters is how you exploit your victories, usually by getting the enemy to give up or deny them things.

Numbers are just a small factor of who wins, otherwise china would have won every war, when in fact they lost practically all of them

File: lets see.png (151KB, 1200x520px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1200x520px

>numbers don't matter

Victory is determined by many factors in which numerical superiority is a huge factor.

Given equal qualifications, the one with bigger number will win most of the time.

>>3053753
Pics related.

Hypothetical entry to war, if they both expanded a bit more.

>>3052387
Oh look its an iranian larper.

Romans conquered Ctesiphon twice, Persia couldn't even take Constantinople once.

Could the Chinese crossbow pierce the Roman Scrotum?

File: hancrossbow13ve_zpse413b732.jpg (85KB, 806x556px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 806x556px

>>3053770
Definitely not.
Persian/scythian recurve bow had far more draw weight. People mistakingly conflate the chinese crossbow with the vastly superior european levered crossbow. See pic related, all the chinkbow is a bow placed on a stick sideways for more stability and so their conscripts have to be trained less. Pretty sure they just relied on volley swarm

>>3053777
Draw weight in general is deceptive because a crossbow doesn't pull nearly as far back as a real bow. Recurve bows are more powerful than nearly any sort of small crossbow.

I'm of the Impression that a Han army could beat the Romans at the time of the Punic wars. Roman leaders were political and Hannibal showed that trickery and traps (which the Chinese loved) could defeat these leaders easily. The Chinese had siege skills Hannibal did not. But the Roman army in the 2nd century AD would roll the Chinese. Better armed, better armored, and better led than its Republican predecessor.

>>3053777
>>3053793
Han crossbows weren't meant for untrained peasants,they have multiple strength standards.

I have yet to see anyone disprove the theoretical calculations.
http://historum.com/asian-history/69030-han-dynasty-crossbow.html
https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=297785

>>3047795
War is not decided solely by weapons. Han China also had elite infantry and volunteer army, but their volunteers actually were worse than conscript army, their conscript standing army are no worse than professionals.

>>3053770
lots of Chinese crossbows were made out of composite materials
IE sometimes they literally used horn

File: header-michael-mann-to-direct-historical-battle-film-agincourt.jpg (374KB, 700x823px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 700x823px

>>3053820
I think it is time for your daily reminder

Daily reminder; Unlike longbows,crossbows have never won a battle ever

>>3053830
>"We beat stupid Frogs by longbows in Agincourt once"
>"Wew crossbows have never won a battle ever"
It's another /pol/tier episode...

>>3053770
>>3053777
>>3053793
http://historum.com/asian-history/69030-han-dynasty-crossbow.html

Most likely very much a yes for their average crossbows and definitely for their heaviest crossbows.

The bows do not compare at all against the crossbows. Their much higher draw weight simply outclasses the bow's draw weight.

A typical scythian draw weight is around ~60-70 lb? They have around 25 inch draw length. So the net result is less than half the power of a typical chinese crossbow.

Crossbow completely outclasses these types of bow.

To match a standard crossbow they'd need about 30 inch draw length and about 125 lb draw weight.

And they'd have to do that constantly to match the crossbows. The fable English longbow could reach similar power. With about ~90-100 lb draw weight and about 30 inch draw length. Even that's not quite up to the standard Han dynasty crossbow's power. However E.Longbow's maximum capacity(impossible unless you have couple of people doing it together) is around 170 lb and 30 in. But that's not realistic. Video related.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY

TL;DR/DW, Han Crossbows can pierce Roman scutum, its easily more than twice as powerful as a Scythian bow and average bows of the time.

>>3047795
>China's conscript army
The Han had professional standing armies you dingus.
They also had a large professional cavalry for the purposes of raping Xiongnu horse archers, the kind that trashed Rome's armies towards the end of its life.

>>3053851
>>3053825
>>3053777
Why are you all responding to my Scrotum post?

I literally just took the oOP and replaced 'Scutum' with 'Scrotum', what the hell is wrong with you?

>>3053820
>>3053851
If the Chinese crossbowmem have to literally sit down on the ground to draw their bows, isn't that a huge problem for rate of fire? They'd get off one volley and then the legions would be right up in their faces.

>>3053871
shut up faggot. I'm the OP and it took 50 fucking posts and you making a shitty joke for there to be someone who actually tried to answer my question

dont ruin it

>>3053866
Not just the kind that trashed Roman armies, a much more larger group of horse archers.

The Xiongnu could pull off >40K horse archers consistently and regularly. I think at some battles, they were even pulling 100K+ horse archers. Rome's barbarian horse archers have nothing on them.

>>3053871
XDD LUL I TRULL U XDDD

>>3053872
Volley fire was invented by them, thus firing rate was controlled for consistency.

If the crossbows were so great, why didn't the Persians buy their crossbows to use against the Romans?

>>3049224
During the second punic war rome lost a sum total of 80% of its entire army to hannibal.


Then they just recruited more.


So fuck you.

>>3054965
Care to throw some more spaces in there?

>>3047801
im not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens!

>>3048682
i hate you worse than the shitler guy

>>3047795
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can believe that Han could defeat Rome. None of the Chinese dynasties managed to expand that much. After emperor Qin united the Chinese kingdoms for the first time, the Chinese barely expanded for what - 2,000 years? It's funny because the biggest expanders of Chinese territory were the foreign ones - the Manchu and the Mongolains.

The Romans completely dominated and destroyed any opponent they had. So to imply that the Han has any chance here is quite simply ridiculous

>>3055585
>Han conquests of the Xiongnu lands and Xinjiamg
>Tang conquests of the Turks
>Ming conquests of northern Vietnam

>>3048682
Of course

>>3055585
name another country as old and big as China that still exists

>>3055585
Kek. Roman enemies were barbarians, literally faggots living in trees and the same from the desert. Chinese enemies were people of the same caliber, if not stronger. Rome was always, ALWAYS on the front foot with strategy, technology and men, yet they still managed to fuck everything up and lose it all.

>>3057372
This. They also kept most of the majority of lands they have expanded out to.

>>3055804
>Han conquests of the Xiongnu lands

Just defeated them, didn't conquer shit.

>and Xinjiang
Vassals, not completely conquered.

>Tang conquests of the turks

Not impressive. The Turks were not an organized force but a ragtag bunch of nomads that just lived in that particular land.

>Ming conquests of northern Vietnam

Very, very brief occupation of these lands before they were expelled.

>>3057372
Russia. Modern day China started 60 years ago. Furthermore, the Chinese dynasties were all different, China hasn't been a continuous state for 3,000 years, the Mandate of Heaven just allows anyone who is strong enough to claim suzerainty over the region and establish a dynasty.

>>3057386
>Kek. Roman enemies were barbarians, literally faggots living in trees and the same from the desert. Chinese enemies were people of the same caliber, if not stronger. Rome was always, ALWAYS on the front foot with strategy, technology and men, yet they still managed to fuck everything up and lose it all.

Yeah, the Macedonians, the Seleucids, the Carthaginians, the Levantines, the Persians, the other various Greek states were all barbarians, huh? Yeah, which civilization did China face? The drunken nomads in the Gobi desert?

>>3057372
Egypt?

Not that they were any good at fighting either, they also had a nice river to keep the population fed

>>3057403
>Russia.
Lel. No. Russia founded ~1000 AD.

>>3057413
PRC was founded in 1949. The Republic of China (Taiwan) 1912. Before that the Manchus ruled over China.

>>3057408
>and the same from the desert

>Yeah, the Macedonians, the Seleucids, the Carthaginians, the Levantines, the Persians, the other various Greek states were all barbarians, huh?

Yes.

>implying they still were not on the front foot with tech and strategy and manpower
>yeah, let's argue the semantical meaning of 'barbarian'
Can you actually try?

>The drunken nomads in the Gobi desert?
Are you unaware that they have been literally fighting themselves forever.

>>3057417
Then "Russia" formed in 91'. After the collapse of the soviets.

>>3057420
>Yes.
If the Greeks were barbarians, then the Chinese themselves would be considered even less than barbarians.

>Can you actually try?
Who was in the front foot of what? The Xiongnu were a loose confederacy of a bunch of tribes and nothing special. You just need to check Chinese history - they got wrecked in almost every single war they have been, the only decent Chinese expansion was done under the first emperor - Qin Shi Huang. Complete stagnation.

>Are you unaware that they have been literally fighting themselves forever.
What?

>>3057422
Cool. Then I can say the United States. Where are we going with this exactly?

>>3052387
Carhhae was the result of a over-confident general putting his troops into a compromising position for some political gains. Its not representative of the conflict between the Romans and the Parthians. Not to mention the Parthians were an actual established state, not a horde of nomadic peoples.
The Chinese army is way more professional than many give it credit for but it also didn't have superfluous amounts of well trained soldiers, most historians seriously doubt the logistics of such a feat considering China's economic development at the time compared to the West's.

>>3057427
>What?
Kek.
>being ignorant on purpose.

I am done with you.

>>3057427
>Cool. Then I can say the United States. Where are we going with this exactly?
Kek, where are you going saying modern day china formed 60 years ago but "russia" is not a modern form of Russia and any how different from China.

You are a literal retard, do not bother replying. If you count "ancient Russia" it's still not even an old fucking nation you moron. Like, at all.

You've got not one single clue about anything you are saying yet you want to argue still, should maybe read a book.

>>3057372
israel

>>3057434
The typical redditor with zero arguments
>kek
??????????????? Are you gonna say something or are you gonna sperg like a retard?
>i am done with you
Ok...

>Kek, where are you going saying modern day china formed 60 years ago but "russia" is not a modern form of Russia and any how different from China.
China was run by the Manchus for 300 years, it's not comparable.

>You are a literal retard, do not bother replying. If you count "ancient Russia" it's still not even an old fucking nation you moron. Like, at all.
Size doesn't matter you absolute buffoon
Germany is ten times as richer than China and has what? 1/20 of its territory? The point is, the Chinese didn't manage to conquer anytihng of note after Qin Shi Huang united the warring kingdoms. You can sperg all you want, but facts are facts.

>You've got not one single clue about anything you are saying yet you want to argue still, should maybe read a book.
Ironic.

>>3057432
Who are "most historians"?

At a glance they're way beyond anything produced in the west, but reading the history and the technical details, they are very much in line.

During the second Punic War, Roman empire pulled ~700K, most of it is conscripts with little to no training, but against an equal number of Carthage forces.

When faced with existential threats, the Chinese were able to pull quite a bit of number, due to their strong conscription system in place. Where as the Romans didn't initiall had an conscription and was still pulling 700K, the Chinese had a robust conscription system that developed within the few centuries of chaos in the warring states period.

The Chinese standing army wasn't really that large considering its size. The Han for example had reduced the number of standing professional army from the Qin's ~"1M" to roughly around 300K or so. They increased the age of conscript to 23ish, up from Qin's 15+. The Han later lowered this number to 20, when they waged a full scale campaign against the Xiongnu.

If you didn't know, the Qin state's entire motto was "muh state, muh government". Literally put all their resources into agriculture(food) and military/technology. They had a disliking for music/arts and other social sciences. They had state controlled monopolies on military technology like iron/metal/bronze blast furnaces and shit. Qin were the autismo run rampant. This is where you get the huge number of Qin size. Unbelievable under normal circumstances where you imagine every other humans as yourself, posting on 4chan, listening to music, partying, etc. But think about the implications if the country you live on suddenly focused only on technology/foods-resources/military. With no adherence/banning music/arts students and mindless chattering/etc. Think of a state that forces every male 15+ to serve under military.

Romans who didn't have this system could still pull huge numbers. Think of roman empire with universal conscription.

>>3057453
Qin Shi Huang united the warring states. Han conquered the Xiongnu states and the western barbarians states. They briefly lost it but then Tang conquered it again. Then they lost it. Then the mongols mong'd the song/jin conquered a huge chunk of land everywhere. Eastern mongol empire came under Yuan mongol control. Then ming came and occupied roughly the same space of area the Qin Shi Huang did. They got Qing'd took the same areas the Yuan did. Then lost it when they collapsed and reverted back to Qin Shi Huang's China. Then PRC retook the Qing claim. Here we are now.

>>3057530
Neither the Han nor the Tang conquered shit. They just defeated the nomads, but didn't exert any administrative control over the lands. What Caesar did in Gaul is conquering a land, not what Wu Han did.

can someone just fucking answer my question objectively without getting caught up in the tribalism

>>3057536
Han would, simply because their conscription system and crossbow technology.

>but han numbers are a lie
opinion
>but roman shields/armor are invulnerable
inaccurate see >>3053851

>romans are professionals
correct, however this is not an argument its a statement. Han Chinese had their own professionals too, on top of the conscripts. This is what gives them the advantage

>what about Roman professional vs han professional
crossbows are the deciding factor

>what about Roman professional vs han conscripts
Crossbow vs professionalism, equals outs

>what about white vs yellow race
Romans are olive race, not white. But for the sake of argument, olives > whites. And yellow race are olives too if you go south enough or if you go north enough.

>but muh ancestors
are dead.

File: itsthatboy.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>3057555
thank you very much

also checked

>>3057536
Han China would win battles, but not the war. Rome might not win the war, either, but they wouldn't lose to Han.

>>3057601
Very convincing one liner there.

File: 1497963464551.jpg (38KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x450px

>>3057601

>muh Han Wudi

>>3047795
Topic like this is always popular in almost anywhere.

The best answer is to make games like "Total War China vs Rome" or something like that, then we can all make our own conclusions.

>>3058117
That wouldn't solve anything, instead would fuel the debate even more.

Feelings would be hurt because "muh ancestors"

>>3058137
Yeah but you can just play whichever faction you want to win and win with them

>>3047795
Are these Rome vs China thread all made by the same fucking autist? ENOUGH, this is literally samurai vs knight tier shit thread.

>>3053830
>Unlike longbows,crossbows have never won a battle ever

Longbows didn't win Agincourt, French nobles being arrogant and wanting to find English nobles to ransom won Agincourt, instead of waiting for their skirmishers and infantry, they just charged a really long stake filled artificial bottle neck and got cut down by the infantry in the centre.

>>3058556
They sure as shit won crecy though