Who do you think has the better army between the Roman Empire and the Han Chinese Empire?

[Julie4]

[OneViewpoint]

Interesting question. The two empires were pretty much exact contemporaries in time. They both made advances in technology, government, civil engineering, law, art, etc. They both had expansive lands they acquired in part through conquest. And they both had impressive armies for their era.

The Han Empire emphasized cavalry more. I'd give their mounted soldiers an edge generally. But I think the Roman foot soldiers might be better than their Han ground pounder foes in general. However as many historians point out, it really matters when you make the comparison. As these guys didn't stand still or follow the same developmental path for the 700 or so years they were both around. At one time the Romans may have had the edge. At another time the Han military may have been superior.

[RavVid]

The Han dynasty was the only decent one Chinese one and only lasted 400 years. Far from 100 years of humiliation, I count 1,300 years of humiliation when i count foreigners in charge like the mongols and manchus.

Lets get the Fall of Rome right. We should say Roman Fall cause the Byzantine empire was Roman and that lasted till 1453.

I think you have to judge on how competitive the respective military's were and the gold standard is how long they lasted.

On that basis Romans were the winners again!

[Julie4]

It's a very bad way of looking at things for China, and I recommend Kissinger's excellent book on China.

[RavVid]

It complements my very bad attitude to China :)

Peter Zeihan is giving it about 10 years till the next fall of China so I will squeeze in Kissinger's book though I think before he died he a made comment that China might have been a mistake.

by the way did you realize you are closer to Beijing than I am? i was surprised when I was idly doing some great circles the other day.

We are going to have to piss China off quite badly in the next little while. It is not official communications but no communications happen without official blessing is the reality. A lot of chatter about restoring Australia to Asia etc.

They'll get really narky when they get kicked out of the Port of Darwin which both major political parties campaigned on doing at the recent election. They'll spit chips.

[FreyaRed]

Who knows? We will never find it out.
Romans lost against germanic army led by Arminius in battle of Teutoburg Forest and Romans were in every aspect superior with exception of moral and luck.

[RavVid]

There was a lack of wisdom in taking a short cut suggested by a German. wrt to Teutoburg.

[WhitneySnow]

That’s a good question and it’s a shame they never clashed in some neutral territory like Sassanid Persia

[AI Opinion]

Both the Roman Empire and the Han Chinese Empire had formidable armies with their unique strengths. The Roman legions were known for their discipline, innovative tactics, and engineering skills, which helped them conquer and control vast territories in Europe. On the other hand, the Han Chinese army was renowned for its use of advanced technology like crossbows and strategic intelligence. Choosing a "better" army would depend on specific criteria like battlefield strategies or innovations. Both made significant contributions to military history. 🏹⚔️

[RyanEC]

I think Rome had better tactics and better armor.


They also had more experience then the Chinese after China was unified and eventually came under the Han.


Fun fact China won more battles then any other country but it was mostly China vs China and internal conflicts.


France is number one with battles against foreign powers despite the silly misconceptions about France surrendering.

[strateguy632]

That is tough, because han expanded far west and conquered vast regions south , far beyond yangze river but their enemies were minor, in contrast rome smashed major persians, major at the time. So rome woulda smashed han too, and they were same era but far apart.

[AviatorTom]

The Roman Empire's army is well organized, disciplined, with very good military tactics. The Han Empire's army is larger and uses its large numeric advantage in its conquests.

If they ever met on the battlefield, the Romans would win, but it would be a long drawn out battle.

[Zack-Bann]

That’s like comparing grape fruit to race cakes at this point


Hard to tell since they never truly went head to head


I think each was well crafted enough to establish dominion over a certain place at a certain time

[strateguy632]

Aww zack... you missed a chance to say it! "comparing grapes to rice" the major crops in each!

[Agape93]

Roman's are better organized and supplied and trained, and are best suited to the types of terrain they and China would be fighting on.

[SixFootSexy]

The Chinese had gunpowder for thousands of years before the west, and completely blew their technological lead.

[DeeDeeDeVour]

If they went (hypothetically) head-to-head against each, I put my money on the Romans.

[Shiprex]

Hard to say as in those days the size of the armies was more important than the strategies and weapons.

[KostasKouvalis]

Rome was conquered, China wasn't, so there's your answer

[Julie4]

WTF , Is it ironic when you say that China has never been invaded?

[Anonymous]

Chinese had the better army, they know Kung Fu.

[Opinion Owner]

But don't forget the Persian empire at its prime, they were more powerful than Romans.

[BCRanger10]

My gut says Rome.

[Communicationisking]

Neither, violence is not a good thing.

[Kelly6]

@julie4 Han empire

[Godihateyou]

The Roman's. The Phalenx is pone.

[Anonymous]

Of course the Han Chinese Empire 🇨🇳

[Bklynbadboy12]

The Romans