First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Anicent Rome army vs Anicent China army
Posted 3/29/16
Lol-

52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
What Marcus Octavius always say about Roman? Yep

Posted 3/29/16
who ever has a bigger army?
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Mage_friend wrote:

who ever has a bigger army?

The romans routinely won vs. larger forces.

At the Battle of Alesia, Julius Caesar was outnumbered 4:1

Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


Mage_friend wrote:

who ever has a bigger army?

The romans routinely won vs. larger forces.

At the Battle of Alesia, Julius Caesar was outnumbered 4:1



It's not a matter of numbers, which the Chinese do have. But superior military tech. For example the heavy crossbow the Ancient Chinese favored would have punch holes clean through a Roman shield wall. and probably through two or three guys behind that shield. Not to mention as a whole the Chinese foot soldier enjoyed considerable higher personal protection in the form of full plate armour. The various forms of chinese spear are also adept at ground and mounted combat . Not to mention unlike the thrust centric gladius the Chinese swords were much better all rounders. And the heavy shields the Chinese themselves used would knock aside everything the Romans could throw at it a save a ballista.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16
The Chinese had powerful crossbows hundred of years ahead of their time. Those would be able to out-range Roman javelins and probably penetrate shields sometimes.

They build reliable triggers with standardized parts. A crossbow of this kind could be easily assembled by just carving a wooden "stock" and attaching a war bow to the end and lashing it on. The trigger could be fitted into an opening carved in the wooden piece, so it was a very simple but effective mechanism. And any peasant could use one with minimal training. They could field squads of crossbowmen very quickly.

The battleground would also matter. In a large, open space where the Chinese have to charge the Romans, they'd probably be hard-pressed to destroy the Roman formation of shields and spears. On rough terrain in a forest where the Romans can't use their powerful shield wall, the Chinese with their polearms would probably win.

You must also consider that Romans also had powerful siege engines like ballista, and they also had professional dedicated soldiers where many Chinese soldiers were part-timers. But the Chinese used cavalry quite a lot and also had some pro soldiers, although I'm not sure whether they had as many as the Romans.
Posted 3/29/16
Rome ftw
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
so was the movie you watched Red Cliff?

If the Chinese has a strategist as smart as Zhuge Liang on its side then the Romans are dead meat

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

Ranwolf wrote:

It's not a matter of numbers, which the Chinese do have. But superior military tech. For example the heavy crossbow the Ancient Chinese favored would have punch holes clean through a Roman shield wall.and probably through two or three guys behind that shield.

The Warring States period Chinese used a variety of crossbows and bows. With the majority of arm drawn and foot drawn crossbows the main advantage was not penetrating power but stored strength.

The romans used composite bows and infantry units used both lead darts and the pilum. Both weapons were designed to embed themselves in enemy shields, weighing them down.

In terms of heavier weapons, the roman ballista and scorpio (both are heavy crossbows) were roughly equivalent to their Chinese counterparts at the time.


Not to mention as a whole the Chinese foot soldier enjoyed considerable higher personal protection in the form of full plate armour.

Heavy infantry of the Warring States period wore a leather jerkin with card sized bronze plates and a hardened leather helmet. Rank and file troops (especially crossbowmen and archers) would have been less well armored.

Roman infantry typically wore either mail or scale armor. At the top end was the lorica segmentata, which used banded strips of steel and iron cuirasses (worn only by generals). Most infantry regiments used the scutum, three ply wooden shields wrapped in cloth or leather - they were effective against both melee and missile weapons and when used in formation were overlapped.


The various forms of chinese spear are also adept at ground and mounted combat . Not to mention unlike the thrust centric gladius the Chinese swords were much better all rounders. And the heavy shields the Chinese themselves used would knock aside everything the Romans could throw at it a save a ballista.

The standard pole arm of the warring states period was the dagger axe, with troops typically carrying a bronze dagger or axe as a secondary weapon. Swords were only just starting to appear in the Chinese military and were typically still made of bronze. Dagger-axes varied in length from 9' - 18' and were used in formation; much like the greeks.

The romans used the gladius, the spatha (a longer sword), the pilum, and typically carried a dagger. The gladius, while fully functional as a slashing weapon was primarily used as a thrusting weapon for tactical reasons.

Tactics: each legionnaire would throw one or, if time permitted, both of his pilum to weigh down enemy shields prior to engaging in melee. The gladius was used in a thrusting attack between the interlocking shields of the formation.



Posted 3/29/16
I knew this was your thread, Janus.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

It's not a matter of numbers, which the Chinese do have. But superior military tech. For example the heavy crossbow the Ancient Chinese favored would have punch holes clean through a Roman shield wall.and probably through two or three guys behind that shield.

The Warring States period Chinese used a variety of crossbows and bows. With the majority of arm drawn and foot drawn crossbows the main advantage was not penetrating power but stored strength.

The romans used composite bows and infantry units used both lead darts and the pilum. Both weapons were designed to embed themselves in enemy shields, weighing them down.

In terms of heavier weapons, the roman ballista and scorpio (both are heavy crossbows) were roughly equivalent to their Chinese counterparts at the time.


Not to mention as a whole the Chinese foot soldier enjoyed considerable higher personal protection in the form of full plate armour.

Heavy infantry of the Warring States period wore a leather jerkin with card sized bronze plates and a hardened leather helmet. Rank and file troops (especially crossbowmen and archers) would have been less well armored.

Roman infantry typically wore either mail or scale armor. At the top end was the lorica segmentata, which used banded strips of steel and iron cuirasses (worn only by generals). Most infantry regiments used the scutum, three ply wooden shields wrapped in cloth or leather - they were effective against both melee and missile weapons and when used in formation were overlapped.


The various forms of chinese spear are also adept at ground and mounted combat . Not to mention unlike the thrust centric gladius the Chinese swords were much better all rounders. And the heavy shields the Chinese themselves used would knock aside everything the Romans could throw at it a save a ballista.

The standard pole arm of the warring states period was the dagger axe, with troops typically carrying a bronze dagger or axe as a secondary weapon. Swords were only just starting to appear in the Chinese military and were typically still made of bronze. Dagger-axes varied in length from 9' - 18' and were used in formation; much like the greeks.

The romans used the gladius, the spatha (a longer sword), the pilum, and typically carried a dagger. The gladius, while fully functional as a slashing weapon was primarily used as a thrusting weapon for tactical reasons.

Tactics: each legionnaire would throw one or, if time permitted, both of his pilum to weigh down enemy shields prior to engaging in melee. The gladius was used in a thrusting attack between the interlocking shields of the formation.




Mate I wanted to say something much more meaningfully but I don't see the point if you can't answer this question. By what logic are you comparing Early Era Chinese troops to Late Era Roman troops?
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

nanikore2 wrote:
If the Chinese has a strategist as smart as Zhuge Liang on its side then the Romans are dead meat

The top ranked generals of the classical era:

The top ranked general of all time, Alexander the Great, died mere years before the rise of the Roman Empire. He defeated the Persian empire, regard as the worlds largest and powerful at the time, before marching on to fight in India.

Pyrrhus and Scipio were both regarded by Hannibal as superior generals. Hannibal ranked both generals higher than himself. Pyrrhus was Alexander the Great's nephew.

Julius Ceaser came latter, fighting up through the ranks in Asian Minor before defeating the Gauls in France. The Gauls relied more on numbers and individual fighting ability than tactics.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:
If the Chinese has a strategist as smart as Zhuge Liang on its side then the Romans are dead meat

The top ranked generals of the classical era:

The top ranked general of all time, Alexander the Great, died mere years before the rise of the Roman Empire. He defeated the Persian empire, regard as the worlds largest and powerful at the time, before marching on to fight in India.

Pyrrhus and Scipio were both regarded by Hannibal as superior generals. Hannibal ranked both generals higher than himself. Pyrrhus was Alexander the Great's nephew.

Julius Ceaser came latter, fighting up through the ranks in Asian Minor before defeating the Gauls in France. The Gauls relied more on numbers and individual fighting ability than tactics.


bet they never came up with anything like tricking the enemy into shooting at straw dummies and then collecting those arrows to shoot back
26918 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
He beat Rome in all battles but never won the war. Tactics can mean all the world of difference over any technology.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

nanikore2 wrote:
bet they never came up with anything like tricking the enemy into shooting at straw dummies and then collecting those arrows to shoot back

It would be trivial to list unique tactics each side deployed or overcame. For example, the Romans rendered mounted troops useless, be it horses, elephants or camels, at a time when the Chinese were incorporating ever larger quantities of horsemen.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.