First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Anicent Rome army vs Anicent China army
6947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
I am going to say the Romans. Mainly because they hard better weapons. Bronze as a weapon is not a good choice to used. Armor yes it is durable. Yes the Chinese had gunpowder and crossbows. However, their used of gunpowder was not very accurate. Crossbows can go through armor. Shields is a different story. Crossbows would had been a one time used during a battle mainly because of it reloading time. Also crossbows had a range limit and before the soldiers can get close they would had been taken down by archers.
Posted 3/29/16
I'm more familiar with ancient Rome so I may be a little biased.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

paul25454 wrote:

I am going to say the Romans. Mainly because they hard better weapons. Bronze as a weapon is not a good choice to used. Armor yes it is durable. Yes the Chinese had gunpowder and crossbows. However, their used of gunpowder was not very accurate. Crossbows can go through armor. Shields is a different story. Crossbows would had been a one time used during a battle mainly because of it reloading time. Also crossbows had a range limit and before the soldiers can get close they would had been taken down by archers.


Geez again with the people comparing Warring States China to Late Roman Empire. Do you people even bother looking into the history of warfare before making such sweeping generalizations.

Also not to mention even Europe largely abandoned the longbow once the crossbow came out. You know why 10, 000 crossbows will out shoot a 1000 longbows. Their bolts can punch through the sheet metal the Romans called shields and even the highest form of Roman armour the lorica segmentata is piss poor protection compared to anything the Chinese would have been throwing at it. And the only thing the Romans would have had to answer Chinese armour and heavy shields is a ballista.

Have you lot seen a Roman era ballista, the things are not easy to reload and reposition. In seige warfare or holding a fortified position they are just fine. In the mobile and maneuver based warfare the Chinese favored all that heavy siege equipment would be a liability.
6947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

Ranwolf wrote:


paul25454 wrote:

I am going to say the Romans. Mainly because they hard better weapons. Bronze as a weapon is not a good choice to used. Armor yes it is durable. Yes the Chinese had gunpowder and crossbows. However, their used of gunpowder was not very accurate. Crossbows can go through armor. Shields is a different story. Crossbows would had been a one time used during a battle mainly because of it reloading time. Also crossbows had a range limit and before the soldiers can get close they would had been taken down by archers.


Geez again with the people comparing Warring States China to Late Roman Empire. Do you people even bother looking into the history of warfare before making such sweeping generalizations.

Also not to mention even Europe largely abandoned the longbow once the crossbow came out. You know why 10, 000 crossbows will out shoot a 1000 longbows. Their bolts can punch through the sheet metal the Romans called shields and even the highest form of Roman armour the lorica segmentata is piss poor protection compared to anything the Chinese would have been throwing at it. And the only thing the Romans would have had to answer Chinese armour and heavy shields is a ballista.

Have you lot seen a Roman era ballista, the things are not easy to reload and reposition. In seige warfare or holding a fortified position they are just fine. In the mobile and maneuver based warfare the Chinese favored all that heavy siege equipment would be a liability.


Yes I have. The reason still stands. This is not about Europe in general it is about Romans. The Romans fought mostly in the open. Same as the Chinese. Crossbows are a good weapon but only at a certain distance and rate of fire sucks. After the crossbowman fire and if he miss his target and starting to reload, he would had been taken out. The Romans would never bring a ballista unless they were intending siege warfare. The reason why I said shields is a different story is mainly because its "iffy" on that information.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

paul25454 wrote:


Yes I have. The reason still stands. This is not about Europe in general it is about Romans. The Romans fought mostly in the open. Same as the Chinese. Crossbows are a good weapon but only at a certain distance and rate of fire is sucks. After the crossbowman fire and if he miss his target and starting to reload, he would had been taken out. The Romans would never bring a ballista unless they were intending siege warfare. The reason why I said shields is a different story is mainly because its "iffy" on that information.


Mate Chinese armies of the ancient era typically could number tens of if not hundreds of thousands troops. Most of those troops would be placed in support positions. One of which is reloading crossbows . A typical formation would have several hundred crossbowmen armed with several crossbows apiece , already loaded and ready to fire. With reserve members of their formation feeding them a constant stream of already loaded crossbows . This would let them mess up shots and not worry too much.

Besides mate have you seen a army drawn up into battle formation. Roman formations in particularly are not exactly hard targets to hit. A densely packed group of men armoured in thin steel aren't exactly something even a peasant conscript could miss . Remember you don't have to kill a soldier to render him combat ineffective. In fact merely wounding him is actually preferable from a logistical standpoint. Since a dead soldier cost nothing, but a wounded one is a resource sinkhole. So if a crossbow bolt only took out a legionaries arm or leg it's just as good as if it hit his heart or head. And besides in four seconds another volley of crossbow bolts will finish the job.
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
Sorry I don't speculate.
10587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Online
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

paul25454 wrote:Crossbows are a good weapon but only at a certain distance and rate of fire sucks. After the crossbowman fire and if he miss his target and starting to reload, he would had been taken out.


archers can shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds or less (someone skilled in archery claimed to have been able to shoot in .6 seconds.
if someone today can do that, the skilled archers from the past would surely be able to do that easily)
also: it barely takes a moment for the archer to reload. unless they're beginners, in which case they shouldn't be in the battle field in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

edit: i also remember in a drama where a very skiled archer was able to defeat heavily armored knights by exploiting a very small, tiny gap exposing the neck. if the archers are just as skilled as that guy, armor will barely help.
6947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Ranwolf wrote:


paul25454 wrote:


Yes I have. The reason still stands. This is not about Europe in general it is about Romans. The Romans fought mostly in the open. Same as the Chinese. Crossbows are a good weapon but only at a certain distance and rate of fire is sucks. After the crossbowman fire and if he miss his target and starting to reload, he would had been taken out. The Romans would never bring a ballista unless they were intending siege warfare. The reason why I said shields is a different story is mainly because its "iffy" on that information.


Mate Chinese armies of the ancient era typically could number tens of if not hundreds of thousands troops. Most of those troops would be placed in support positions. One of which is reloading crossbows . A typical formation would have several hundred crossbowmen armed with several crossbows apiece , already loaded and ready to fire. With reserve members of their formation feeding them a constant stream of already loaded crossbows . This would let them mess up shots and not worry too much.

Besides mate have you seen a army drawn up into battle formation. Roman formations in particularly are not exactly hard targets to hit. A densely packed group of men armoured in thin steel aren't exactly something even a peasant conscript could miss . Remember you don't have to kill a soldier to render him combat ineffective. In fact merely wounding him is actually preferable from a logistical standpoint. Since a dead soldier cost nothing, but a wounded one is a resource sinkhole. So if a crossbow bolt only took out a legionaries arm or leg it's just as good as if it hit his heart or head. And besides in four seconds another volley of crossbow bolts will finish the job.


Yes I have seen pictures of them and you do bring up good points. Shit. I just found information on the Chinese crossbow that makes your statement useless, but still bad for the enemy. They dip the tip in poison. That got me to rethink this for bit.
72 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
But Late Roman Empire Army vs. Ming Dynasty China Army? or what time era armies? D;
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

LightMySoul wrote:

But Late Roman Empire Army vs. Ming Dynasty China Army? or what time era armies? D;


To be the most fair and even comparison it would have to be Late Era Roman Empire versus The Han Dynasty.
Sogno- 
45631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/29/16
idk but i think it is an interesting question
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Sogno- wrote:

idk but i think it is an interesting question


True enough but I think China wins for the very simple reason it's still a Superpower a couple thousand years after its rise to fame where Rome is nothing but a memory.
27595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 3/29/16 , edited 3/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


Hail_King_Kakao wrote:


Dariamus wrote:

The Chinese martial arts are impressive for 1v1 combat.




He's still fighting as an individual, as are his opponents.

Against this, he loses, every single time.





Besides, there is the fact that China has never been able to attack another nation and win except before 0 BC... So could the Chinese beat the Roman Legion? The Qin would have to have a much larger force, and remember this, the Romans kicked the crap out of the Carthaginians, Parthians, Persians, Egyptians etc (none of them small or weak empires). So even though the Chinese were good at defending, historically attacking wasn't their forte. My money is on the hardcore legion. Not to mention generals like Scipio and Julius, who were known to be bad ass fighters in and of themselves. Martial art are ok, but personal victory has everything to do with the weapon you're trained to use on the battle field. I'd rather have 40 more hours of rifle work than 40 hours of CQC. You know what I'm talking about. By the way the picture of Legionaries tortoising up says it all.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Steelmonk wrote:



Besides, there is the fact that China has never been able to attack another nation and win except before 0 BC... So could the Chinese beat the Roman Legion? The Qin would have to have a much larger force, and remember this, the Romans kicked the crap out of the Carthaginians, Parthians, Persians, Egyptians etc (none of them small or weak empires). So even though the Chinese were good at defending, historically attacking wasn't their forte. My money is on the hardcore legion. Not to mention generals like Scipio and Julius, who were known to be bad ass fighters in and of themselves. Martial art are ok, but personal victory has everything to do with the weapon you're trained to use on the battle field. I'd rather have 40 more hours of rifle work than 40 hours of CQC. You know what I'm talking about. By the way the picture of Legionaries tortoising up says it all.


Yes cause a lack of overtly Imperialistic tendencies means a General and their army is worse than a General and his Army from a country that is overtly Imperialistic. Mate those imperialistic tendencies were the fall of Rome, it got crushed under the weight of it's own glory. Not to mention the everyone from the Emperor down was an idiot, I mean who builds an economy based around the spoils of war basically.

China endured before the fall of Rome and it endured after the fall of Rome. And the fact it rose to become the modern day Superpower it is now says a lot about the worth of its military doctrine.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/29/16

Dariamus wrote:


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.



I wasn't talking about horsemen
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.