Trajan wouldn't make it past Parthia, let alone India. While he did temporarily occupy the western provinces of the Parthian Empire, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he defeated Parthian cavalry armies in open pitched battles, but most of the Parthian territories he invaded were poorly protected. This was probably because the Parthians were too busy fighting their own civil wars further east to be able to mount a defense
against Trajan's invasion of their western territories. If Trajan tried to invade the Parthian heartlands further east, however, he would have had to eventually face a mounted Parthian army in open pitched battle, which is where the mounted Parthian archers and cataphracts most often had the upper hand over the Roman legionary infantry and cavalry because of their greater range and mobility (as was most evident from Crassus' defeat at the Battle of Carrhae).
Even if we assume that Trajan made it past Parthia, he would have to defeat the Kushan armies (which, much like the Parthians, consisted predominantly of mounted archers) in order to enter India. Considering that the Kushan Empire was at the height of its power and had previously beaten Indo-Parthian armies, they would prove more than a match for the Roman army to overcome and certainly far more difficult than the smaller kingdom of Porus that Alexander had faced. However, Trajan could still reach China through Central Asia and avoid the Kushans and India altogether.
But let's assume Trajan manages to reach China, and that his army isn't exhausted and fights a similar-sized Han Dynasty army. If they are fighting an open pitched battle, I would give the upper hand
to the Han army for the same reason the Parthians often had the upper hand in pitched battles: because they employed large numbers of mounted archers armed with composite bows. The Han army also had a formidable force of infantry archers armed with crossbows, as well as the regular close-range infantry and cavalry units, making the Han army a well-rounded force overall, thus the Roman army would probably have a harder time against the Han army than they did against the Parthians.
The only instance we know of where a Roman army faced a Han army was after the Roman legions captured by the Parthians at Carrhae were posted as guards on their eastern borders, where they were defeated by a Han army. This probably isn't a good indicator, but it suggests that a Roman legionary army alone won't be enough to pose a challenge to the Han army, but the Roman army would need to employ significant numbers of auxillary cavalry, especially mounted archers or cataphracts (much like the later Byzantine army), to be a threat to the Han Chinese army.
against Trajan's invasion of their western territories. If Trajan tried to invade the Parthian heartlands further east, however, he would have had to eventually face a mounted Parthian army in open pitched battle, which is where the mounted Parthian archers and cataphracts most often had the upper hand over the Roman legionary infantry and cavalry because of their greater range and mobility (as was most evident from Crassus' defeat at the Battle of Carrhae).Even if we assume that Trajan made it past Parthia, he would have to defeat the Kushan armies (which, much like the Parthians, consisted predominantly of mounted archers) in order to enter India. Considering that the Kushan Empire was at the height of its power and had previously beaten Indo-Parthian armies, they would prove more than a match for the Roman army to overcome and certainly far more difficult than the smaller kingdom of Porus that Alexander had faced. However, Trajan could still reach China through Central Asia and avoid the Kushans and India altogether.
But let's assume Trajan manages to reach China, and that his army isn't exhausted and fights a similar-sized Han Dynasty army. If they are fighting an open pitched battle, I would give the upper hand
to the Han army for the same reason the Parthians often had the upper hand in pitched battles: because they employed large numbers of mounted archers armed with composite bows. The Han army also had a formidable force of infantry archers armed with crossbows, as well as the regular close-range infantry and cavalry units, making the Han army a well-rounded force overall, thus the Roman army would probably have a harder time against the Han army than they did against the Parthians.The only instance we know of where a Roman army faced a Han army was after the Roman legions captured by the Parthians at Carrhae were posted as guards on their eastern borders, where they were defeated by a Han army. This probably isn't a good indicator, but it suggests that a Roman legionary army alone won't be enough to pose a challenge
to the Han army, but the Roman army would need to employ significant numbers of auxillary cavalry, especially mounted archers or cataphracts (much like the later Byzantine army), to be a threat to the Han Chinese army.(edited 11 years ago)
I am fascinated the two huge Empires occupying the opposite ends of Eurasia, and having a huge impact that is still felt today, had barely any awareness of each other.
As for a direct confrontation? Who can really say. I would place my bet on the Romans, but it really depends on what time they were fighting in, whether there were internal/political fights, how large the Empire was, etc.
As for a direct confrontation? Who can really say. I would place my bet on the Romans, but it really depends on what time they were fighting in, whether there were internal/political fights, how large the Empire was, etc.
I don't really know that much about China at the time but I'd bet on the Romans. They were a very militarised society, a very professional army and ability to fight on despite casualties unlike any other nation in antiquity. Just look at the Second Punic War.
Original post by Jacob :)
I don't really know that much about China at the time but I'd bet on the Romans. They were a very militarised society, a very professional army and ability to fight on despite casualties unlike any other nation in antiquity. Just look at the Second Punic War.
LOL and the Faluires of Byzantine Empire! They barely survived against the Parthia who used Persian Cataphrates. Han China's population was 57 million and processed over 100 steel and Iron fouderies. It also defeated the Xiongnu which where more menacing then the Huns which devested the Western Roman Empire. The Han Dynasty collapsed before Rome but it gave rise to the Three kingdom period and Generals like Cao Cao.
Original post by Type 052D
LOL and the Faluires of Byzantine Empire! They barely survived against the Parthia who used Persian Cataphrates. Han China's population was 57 million and processed over 100 steel and Iron fouderies. It also defeated the Xiongnu which where more menacing then the Huns which devested the Western Roman Empire. The Han Dynasty collapsed before Rome but it gave rise to the Three kingdom period and Generals like Cao Cao.
The Byzantines were very different to the Romans of earlier times. The were far more Greek in culture. The Roman Empires population is estimated at 60 million at its height.
Original post by Jacob :)
The Byzantines were very different to the Romans of earlier times. The were far more Greek in culture. The Roman Empires population is estimated at 60 million at its height.
The Han collasped due to civil strife in the 2nd Century AD, during the Han, Rome was 50 million (Not 60 million). Ignoring the Statistics, the Punic wars during the Republican Era looked like an cat compared to the Xiongnu-Han China.
Just look at this battle's casulties alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobei#
The Great battle of the Punic war, Cannae, only had 80,000 casualties in Total.
Original post by Type 052D
The Han collasped due to civil strife in the 2nd Century AD, during the Han, Rome was 50 million (Not 60 million). Ignoring the Statistics, the Punic wars during the Republican Era looked like an cat compared to the Xiongnu-Han China.
Just look at this battle's casulties alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobei#
The Great battle of the Punic war, Cannae, only had 80,000 casualties in Total.
Just look at this battle's casulties alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobei#
The Great battle of the Punic war, Cannae, only had 80,000 casualties in Total.
So the Chinese were good at dying?
Original post by Jacob :)
So the Chinese were good at dying?
The Roman Army could not sustain such Casualties Their Legions were wiped on the Floor by Hannibal Barca in Cannae and could have marched on Rome (But did not as he sued for peace, big mistake for Carthage). If the Roman faced Han China, they would face repeating Crossbows developed during the warring states.
Catapharats Cavalry (Horse Warfare was an weak point in Roman Military structure):
Long steel coated Jin Swords for Infantry which were better than the Roman Gladius:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Type 052D
The Roman Army could not sustain such Casualties Their Legions were wiped on the Floor by Hannibal Barca in Cannae and could have marched on Rome (But did not as he sued for peace, big mistake for Carthage). If the Roman faced Han China, they would face repeating Crossbows developed during the warring states.
Catapharats Cavalry (Horse Warfare was an weak point in Roman Military structure):
Long steel coated Jin Swords for Infantry which were better than the Roman Gladius:
Catapharats Cavalry (Horse Warfare was an weak point in Roman Military structure):
Long steel coated Jin Swords for Infantry which were better than the Roman Gladius:
Despite his victorys Hannibal never had the manpower to besiege Rome. By the 1st century Rome had many eastern cavalry auxiliaries which would have helped with their own lack of cavalry.
Original post by Type 052D
The Roman Army could not sustain such Casualties Their Legions were wiped on the Floor by Hannibal Barca in Cannae and could have marched on Rome (But did not as he sued for peace, big mistake for Carthage). If the Roman faced Han China, they would face repeating Crossbows developed during the warring states.
Minor point, but if you're going to make corrections then at least try and get your facts right. The Romans lost some 80,000 men at Cannae, almost their entire army at the time, but within a few months they had completely recovered. Manpower was never an issue, only the expense of maintaining a large army when it wasn't needed.
The Han army at its height numbered around 700,000 troops, most of whom were peasant conscripts. That's the only way any nation ever has possibly been able to afford to have such a large army. The Roman army at its height numbered around 450,000 troops, most of whom were career soldiers. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to assume that numbers would be the only deciding factor in any battle between the two.
Original post by Jacob :)
Despite his victorys Hannibal never had the manpower to besiege Rome. By the 1st century Rome had many eastern cavalry auxiliaries which would have helped with their own lack of cavalry.
There was one battle where 500,000 cavalry was used during the Xiongnu-Han war. That's beyond Romes wildest dreams. Chinese Naval warfare was superior to Rome as well.
The Battle of Red Cliff:
Original post by Arbolus
Minor point, but if you're going to make corrections then at least try and get your facts right. The Romans lost some 80,000 men at Cannae, almost their entire army at the time, but within a few months they had completely recovered. Manpower was never an issue, only the expense of maintaining a large army when it wasn't needed.
The Han army at its height numbered around 700,000 troops, most of whom were peasant conscripts. That's the only way any nation ever has possibly been able to afford to have such a large army. The Roman army at its height numbered around 450,000 troops, most of whom were career soldiers. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to assume that numbers would be the only deciding factor in any battle between the two.
The Han army at its height numbered around 700,000 troops, most of whom were peasant conscripts. That's the only way any nation ever has possibly been able to afford to have such a large army. The Roman army at its height numbered around 450,000 troops, most of whom were career soldiers. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to assume that numbers would be the only deciding factor in any battle between the two.
True, but Han Infantary was just as advance as Roman Legionnaires:
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Art Exhibitions in London to Check Out!
- English books set in Japan/China for NEA English Literature A-Level
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- a level history coursework
- New Skz Group
- India vs China (Alone) - Which Is Safer??
- Ivy League Advice for Maths Challenged.
- Uni of Bath vs Uni of Nottingham
- Is it worth doing MA Japanese Studies at SOAS with my goals?
- any stays here haha
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Finance
- call me please
- Your Perfect Country
- Roedean vs. Benenden
- Oxford vs Cambridge for Classics
- Oxford University
- Manchester BSc in International Business, Finance and Economics
- Canterbury Day Trip Ideas
- I need help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
