Roman Empire vs Han China: Who would have won that "alternate history" war? 

Old comment, but it is sad that it did so. (Also, I just gave you the magic number of likes)

As of those exist on 2024

I saw that too! Good thing the Romans got the Bitcoin action early, before its price spiked up :)

Yeah but i think they're a bit more salty then ours. ;)

Yes. I made that happen with time travel.

Ah, Miao and Yue had like at most 2 million people in the Han era, and most of them are related through marriage to Han populations. Yue are not the Cantonese, Yue are Vietnamese, Cantonese isn't a ethnicity don't know where you heard that from, there is the Canton Han, which are the descendants of Han and Yue intermarrying. Wu isn't a ethnicity, it's again a variant of Han. It's like saying English men from London is a different ethnicity from English men from York. People back than would say: "My ancestors are from the Kingdom of Wu", which means they came from the region where the Wu kingdom used to reside. Shanghai didn't even exist back then, there was some fishing villages in the area of Nanjing, the coast is occupied by the last enclaves of the Yue(huts on beaches) with at most populations of 10,000 people, you don't know crap about Han empire buddy.

Nope.. they were already a homogenous people during the han. The civil wars are based on individual ambitions rather than different culture, like the three kingdoms, everyone involved are han people vying to become emperor.

There were variety of policies on currency and language during the Qin dynasty’s by the first emperor of China, by the end of the Han dynasty the Chinese people is relatively homogenous. There is also the Tang and Song Dynasties following the Han that solidified the Chinese identity during the height of its powers. Maybe learn a bit more about Chinese history things would be more clear.

Although Han had many different ethnic groups and different culture types, it was still very homogenous since after the Qin dynasty. Remember how the first Emperor of China did a mass burning of all cultural things because he believed that 1 China is the only China, in order to maintain his position, as well as to quell rivals who would no doubt use history. Yes, as the Han Empire expanded, they did take on many different ethnic groups who were too far from the central Imperial power but everything else in between was pretty "Han" chinese. Lastly, what "many civil wars" are you talking about~!? Their was only 3 major ones i can think of that lasted through the entire Han Dynasty!

+Eric Langlois That only happens if the ruling emperor was incompetent resulting in an increase of corruption and instability. This, in turn, causes turmoil within the Chinese government and different factions begin to form, each with their own personal ambition of conquering China. On average, a Chinese dynasty can last for ~200+ years without much internal conflict, far outlasting most European empires with a ruling population and land area equivalent to China's. The Chinese Zhou Empire lasted for ~800 years, making it one of the longest ruling empires in human history.

I don't get it.

@@barbatvs8959 Asterix

Actually wrong. The Romans main enemies were hellenic successorstates fighting in macedonian phalanx with strong missile support, and later parthians relyant on heavy cavalry.

The Nomads that Chinese defeated also went and defeated the Roman and Barbarians from Central Europe.

Pretty sure the live action remake shows some true to life recreations of how Chinese forces would fight against flaming stones thrown from trebuches

@@Xiong-f2l Hard to say the Chinese defeated them, they literally had to build a bigass fucking wall to save themselves

@@anguswaterhouse9255 wtf you talking about? Han subjucated Xiongnu and thus they migrated west and became known as the Huns. Tang defeated the Goturks. Ming defeated Oirat.

lol asterix and obelix

source?

@@mint8648 My guess is that there is none. At best... maybe they’re trying to compare the Han to Italy on its own.

China has been a slave-serf country for two thousand years, but more often it doesn't need to be bought and sold, so stop your fantasies

This is sad my ancestors is Xiongnu

@@perotaccc8732 you totally wrong

China will win 100%

@@destructo_mamba_embergb Perhaps, perhaps the Romans, perhaps a third option or fourth, and they continue on as the Persians against the Romans until 3rd parties destroy them. You can never know fanboy.

China wins but it'll be a Pyrrhic Victory. Rome is better

@@reiryghts639 Ah wtf, I can see the comment in the notifacations, but not when the click on the comment thread. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the Pyrrhic victory of Han China.

@@Flavius_Belisarius these types of videos never bring up the disparity in weapons between Roman and Chinese infantry, and always assume that the Chinese wielding predominantly polearms would be at a disadvantage when in fact every hema larper knows that pole arms were the dominant force on the battlefield until firearms. They also never highlight the fact that the chinese were using halberds, which again, according to hema larpers is the absolute pinnacle of melee combat weapons. Hmmm I wonder who would win, a short sword or a halberd? I think there is a reason euros in the Middle Ages dropped the gladius and adopted the halberd across the board lmao.

Arguably, the Western Han's height was around 100 BCE and the Eastern Han's height was around the 80s-90s AD. Around the 100s AD, the Han became a bit politically unstable from internal politics. So Binkov's Battleground is even more off on their timeline.

very important stuff. Which this guy actually mentioned at the very begining. That both empire have different golden age and weak time, so it is meaningless to compare both empire in a exact time period. However, at the end it becomes "because of conflict of warlord" ok. Now you are using the roman's strong(or at least unite) time to compare with Han-split time, this is nonsense dude. That is the problem that a middle-school student shouldn't have when writting an essay

@@yiyangqin4527 ....three kingdoms?

@@reinatr4848 if you recheck the video, you will find this problem very soon, so obvious problem and werid logic

Agreed. Both sides had their strengths and weaknesses and their armies were specialized in fighting certain types of enemies. Post-Marian principate era Romans were heavy infantry centric, allowing them an advantage in siege and CQC infantry clashes. Early Eastern Han Dynasty armies were massed firepower pike and shot-esque armies (with crossbows instead of guns) backed by large diverse cavalry continents. Of course the Han Empire did still have good infantry and Romans did still have decent archers and good cavalry, but the two specialized in firepower + cavalry and heavy infantry respectively.

@@Intranetusa False. Han had much more experience sieging much bigger and stronger cities. 80% of ancient warfare in China was fought in sieges. Rome would win in a heavy infantry or any infantry frontal clash if Han could not use their numerical superiority. Han had more light infantries, more archers and better cavalries. Although Rome would had better trained, more disciplined core troops flanked by auxiliaries.

@@devilhunterred False. First, the Han did not have much of a numerical superiority because the Romans were also heavily using conscription. If you look at the records of Han army sizes commanded by famous generals for a single battle or operation, they numbered something like 5,000 for general Li Ling, 40,000-70,000 for Ban Chao (with only a fraction of Han troops, the rest being mercenaries and auxiliaries), and 40-50,000 and then 100,000 for Li Guangli's invasion of Ferghana respectively. This is comparable to what the Romans had during the mid-late Republic to Principate - 90,000 troops at Cannae, 100,000+ troops at Arausio, 30-40,000 troops at Trebia and Tresamine, 40-50,000 for Crassus' army at Carrhae, and ~70,000 for Caesar's army at Alessia. Han Wudi sent 200k+ troops against the Xiongnu Confederation, and Trajan sent 100k-200k troops against the Dacians and Parthians. The Romans heavily used conscription all the way into the Principate era under Augustus and then still kept it around to a lesser extent afterwards. Second, the Romans also engaged in many many sieges and siege like battles. Caesar's troops were extremely skilled at besieging an enemy city while building a wall around themselves when they became besieged - that type of skill comes from decades if not centuries of accumulated military skills. Most battles everywhere were probably siege battles but don't get the glory of field battles. I'm giving the Romans an edge in sieges since siege battles heavily rely on heavy infantry fighting in close quarters, which means the Han Dynasty's cavalry, long pike formations, and rotating crossbow lines would not be as effective here. Though the Han's crossbows and larger numbers of archers would make "defending" in sieges easier.

Intranet Caesar was long dead by this time, most of the Roman wars of this era were fought against barbarians and only a few against some Parthian forts, meanwhile Cao Cao would have had to fight in countless siege battles here to reunite China, as the walls were massive and especially thick, such as 40 meters in extreme cases and 20 meters on average so the Chinese army was better at long and treacherous sieges and the Romans could use their siege weapons which are actually useless against the especially thick Chinese walls

​@@bigbrothersinnerparty297 ​If you want to discuss a battle during the life of T'sao T'sao in the late 2nd century AD, then that weakens your overall argument because that was a time of significant weakness for the Han Dynasty. First, many of the battles of the late Han/early Three Kingdoms era were fought with poorly trained troops because the Han Dynasty was collapsing and their military training system had collapsed and training had heavily degraded in standards for the inner core provinces. That makes it far worse than the Romans "only" fighting against barbarians or Parthian forts. Scholars believe that there was a heavy emphasis on duels in both the ROTK novel and the historical records precisely because many troops had poor morale, and victory or defeat depended on the valor displayed by their generals. This is in contrast to the earlier Han period or later 3K era (when Tsao Tsao wasn't around) when troops were better trained with better morale and duels were rare or didn't happen. That is why by the mid-Three Kingdoms era, duels became extremely rare because military training were restored to good quality standards and troops become well trained again. Duels were no longer necessary for morale by that point.

+Al Capwn If you think the Han Chinese have shit on the Romans, you are sorely mistaken.

@@asmdesign1956 That's incredibly inaccurate. Btw, a battalion is 300-800 soldiers. Also, the numbers mean very little. Moral is far more important, mass routes could occur to a large force from a much smaller force; and there are many examples of this in history.

ASM Seven It doesn’t say that last part. I have actually read the art of war. I collect psychology books. He speaks more on manipulating the opponent to take minimum losses mostly. You really know nothing? Now I know, lol. What a bluffer. Also, your English is terrible and barely understandable.

@@asmdesign1956 You don't make sense. In real life, numbers did not equal victory. A well-trained and well paid army will best a larger conscript force every time. Dozens of battles ended this way throughout history.

@@alcapwn7622Eh... no. A well-trained and well paid army does not best a larger conscript every time. For example: - All modern war that involve the US (Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan), - WW2 (Nazi vs USSR), - lots of battles in Napoleon War, - American independent war - many battles during the holy war between Christian and Islam, - many battles during Mongolian Conquest - almost all battles during Hannibal conquest - almost all battles during the Barbarians and Huns' invasions - almost millions of other war and battles worldwide In fact your statement is so wrong, that IF it's right. There would have been one single country on Earth right now, because the first country with a well-trained and well-paid army will beat and snowballing any enemies its encounter because the more they conquest, the more they can pay and train their invasion army

Jan James Callejo DUDE YES. Like pure war b4 ww1

i would say the US would loose in 1914 but it would win in the inter war period simply cuz of the naval strength and on land it would be just trenches around Canadian cities the US would probably be forced to give up some territories like American Samoa

Yea, Europe could still be the most influential continent if we weren't constantly at war with eachother, weakening ourselves.

@@adampytlik8453 not really, eventually rhe USA would overtake u even without both world wars

@@anoncrazynonevilgooddecent7631 I disagree, yes, the US was rising and had great position by being large, not yet plundered of all it's riches by the Europeans and most importantly by being isolated. I can see it becoming one of the great powers, but it wouldn't surpass for example the Great Britain, France and Germany. If in this fictional war the European powers would become allies, the US wouldn't stand a chance, it would get completely obliterated.

True, but Philipi was a civil war, so neither side commanded hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Well over 100 thousand fought, but they fought divided in different armies

Fight don't work like that always.

exactly, China low diffs

Huns / Han. Sound familiar isn't it? I'm not surprise the Roman thought the Han turn on them.

@@User50981 Ancient China them selves said Rome was an equal Empire to their own

Kenji Miao just no

bullshit riceman

As part chinese and lover of it's history I tend to agree to the video's conclusion. Yes Han Empire might win a prolonged conflict in a hypothetical world where they are close to each other, only because it has a more homogenous population and stable government. Roman Emperors after losing a battle might lead to a disastrous civil war. But China is not the most advanced around 200 AD. They are 200 years before and 200 years after but not by that time. Roman Generals are extremely good too and have sources to military tactics on par with Shun Tsu.

Nothing near? Chinese and they're arrogance

Catholic league* not italian league, think that at that time all of souther Italy was Spanish

In 1461 it probably would have been sunk by the Venetians, Genoese and other Italian fleets.

That's a heavily disputed claim, most historians think thats basically fan fic

Actually the theory about Roman soldiers appeared in China is based on the interpretation of a Han Dynasty text by Oxford Professor Homer A Dubs. He was translating a battle report written by the Han Dynasty general during a military campaign against the Xiongnus, a nomadic people thought to be the ancestors of the Huns. In the report, a group of soldiers on the Xiongnu side was in a 'fish-scale' battle formation which Dubs interpreted as Roman testudo formation. Based on his interpretation, Dubs theorized that these soldiers were Romans most likely survivors from Carrhae. In 2011, Dr Christopher Anthony Matthew from Australian Catholic University proposed an alternate theory that these soldiers were not Roman soldiers but most likely descendants of Alexander the Great's Greek-Macedonian soldiers.

Stop using a vpn reeeee

Nice one bro

actualy around or almost 100k for each side

Ottomans did invade italy during the 16th century, several times

Roman empire already got rid of near peer enemies early on. It didnt need to do all-in type deal frequently. The reason why China seemed to have fielded ridiculous amount of armies is because they did lot of all-in type wars mixed with professional, volunteer, reserve, and conscript soldiers

Because people will always try to compare thing's, be it food, people or empires

That's probably because they censor things so heavily in China while the "West" is quite a bit more open.

vzdorr b I agree that most of Chinese historian talked more on the positive side of China than the negative, but I wouldn’t use the word “every” while saying the whole Chinese history is distorted.

Faith Rox that’s pretty true, 30years ago you can barely see anything negative about the communist party and the Chinese government, the censor thingy had just getting a bit loose in recent years. But still is very strict

@vzdorr b i disagree, but sure

@Elder of Zion first they’d have to siege Constantinople

Europeans have always had a warrior culture, their infighting and competition is the reason their armies and cultures have come to dominate, and the disillusion of said warrior culture is what has made them stagnate, same as the late roman empire. If the Chinese army had to face off against the early empire's legions, they would have been crushed. Rome collapsed as they had no real enemies to fight for a long time, and they had all the resources they needed. This caused degeneracy and complacency, and the roman armies slowly degenerated to majority non-roman. That is why Rome collapsed, degeneracy and complacency coming from a surplus of resources and general lack of outside threats. This is what China has been for most of history. No threats, no lack of resources, no need for a highly skilled efficient army. The Chinese would have lost against Rome.

@@bitcoinzoomer9994 Lol...You barely had no knowledge of history by saying that China had no treats, no lack of resources in history sort of things.Have you heard of great wall? what kind of situation will one civilisation decide to build a wall for 5000km+ length for continually 2000 years? I suggest you should think before talk. Both Rome Empire and Han Dynasty had warrior culture, so that does not mean anything without tactical consideration. Emperor Wu of Han literature mean martial emperor, who suggest his citizens to train martial art. I should give up debating with you cause you don't have basic information about the other side of Eurasia continent and just imagine or prejudge by yourself. Rome is a great empire of course, so did Chinese dynasty, so I did not say any conclusion:)

“Why romans look like black hair with black eyes” you mean white people only have blond and blue eye? Stupid

@@ImATiger-ci5ru for me, Rome is more likely Mediterranean, not European

Ah yes, because Huns from 2nd century are obviously the same as the Huns from the 5th century and obviously 4-5th century Rome is the same as 1st - 2nd century one. This argument is so flawed and stupid dude. Not to mention, Rome WAS battling several opponents at the time Huns arrived, so saying their war against Attila is comparable to Han's war against the Huns is also incredibely dumb. Overall your argument is just idiotic on many layers of it, the examples you provided in no way explain why Rome at its peak would lose.

The Romans fought the Persians for 721 years. Fighting China would literally be a 1000 years of misery for Rome.

I think the video is saying exactly this.

svon1 Lol 😂 ok I guess Chinese traders were operating in Xiongnu steppes, Vietnam and Korea.

It's hard to understand how a hypothetical war would play out because although you demonstrated good understanding of Roman tactics at the time, it doesn't seem like you knew for sure how the Chinese fought. The Chinese also had their own ancient tactics and learning on how to conduct warfare. Alot of well known military books such as Art of War came centuries before this time period and Zhuge Liang who is raved as one of the most brilliant Chinese military tacticians in Chinese history is from the 3 kingdom time period. The earliest examples of Asian military strategies vs West didn't happen until a thousand years later when Mongolians invaded with Chinese military engineers and tacticians and they ran through the Middle east like it was nothing who western armies have fought to a standstill for centuries with various successes from both sides. That same Mongolian military however took over a century to fully invade China and that is with adopting Chinese tactics, stealing and taking Chinese technologies along the way throughout the war. Now granted this was a thousand years later so irrelevant to Rome vs Han, but lack of information and understanding makes it very hard for us to truly know Han's military prowess and tactics in warfare. There are however alot of Chinese historical documents that point to some in-genius innovations and tactics filled with military Calvary diversions and feint attacks used that would of gave the slower Roman armies some problems. Some famous war generals that are still worshiped as gods today at Chinese homes such as Guan Yu also came from that time period.

to both first of all i utterly despise Sun Tzu´s art of war not because its bad , but because its good but people tend to ignore what it was made for walking up hill is harder than walking down hill if you train people they fight better that would not even be new information for cavemen Sun Tzu wrote down basic rules for aristocrat palace kids so that they wont fuck up once in battle Sun Tzu was a far better Strategist than his basic rules second Chinese traders had the lowest rank in their society no matter how much wealth they had the very wealthy however could get an honorary Title giving them even protection from some laws ,if they used their wealth and trade connection to support the military campaign third traders went from the Indus valley to Germania during the bronze age roughly over 1.000 years before this scenario i think you underestimate what Chinese traders and their connections to other traders could be capable of fourth the middle ages are one of the weakest points in European military history and the mongols never told us how many they lost fighting the Poles and Hungarians which indicates high casualties ,since mongols ruled by fear and the chinese didnt really loosed as much to the mongols as they where surrendering , most either didnt want to risk the consequences or just had enough of infighting and thought that an Mongol Emperor was easy way out now you have 1 point i largely agree with which is cavalry the romans nearly always hired cavalry from other nations mostly Germanic, Gallic and Parthian to do the job for them however cavalry alone wont do the job Gaul got conquered just as part of Germany and the Parthian Empire Collapse after the roman army rampaged through it in ~180AD not to mention the Chinese cavalry would still be mostly Militia the Romans while they hired cavalry from others , they still trained them in all things military , they where just as professional

@@svon1 It's your opinion to dislike Art of War. Many folks find applications for it and disagree with your opinion. You take those basic rules that Sun Tze wrote down too literally as if it's something a caveman would know, and completely miss the greater point of what he is trying to say. The chinese language is full of metaphors, and these basic rules represents a simplification of a philosophical approach on how to handle competition in general. It is easy to understand walking uphill is more difficult than walking downhill, but the true meaning of this statement signals that you should not compete against any natural barrier in general where your opponent may have an advantage. Some of these might be obvious, while others may not be. For example Hitler invaded the Soviets during the cold winter (not so obvious right?). Those simple rules by Sun Tze has manifested into brilliant tactics in ancient times by war generals as they assess each individual unique war scenarios. It's about how you apply it. If you read the statement too literally you miss the larger point of it. By the 3 Kingdoms period, war generals would use deceptions to create illusionary advantages and disadvantages for their opponents.

@@svon1 first, mongol never lost against poland and hungary, they fall back because there was a succession crisis back in khanbaliq, where the batu khan, commander of the european conquest were part of it. 2nd. Fighting uphill is always risky no matter how elite your troops are. Example 1, Battle of bunker hill Professional redcoats with grenadiers suffered major casualites against poorly trained american militias. Example 2, battle of teutonborg forest, elite roman legions got destroyed by poorly equiped germanic tribesman. 3rd. Depends on which part of china the romans attack. If they attacks areas like the western protectorate/xinjiang, your theory could work, since there is not much assimilation and most of the commanders thing they're exiled soldiers. However, if the war is in proper Han empire, i doubt it will work. One, every city has a garrison and a pool of militia reserves, in times of need. Second, since the han is as rich as the romans or possibly more (since the romans visited them first), i doubt you can buy them off. 4th. Ancient chinese military doctrine are based on manuevers and deception. So romans fighting them will be like fighting parthians and sasanids.

@علي يا سر Yeah, and the other conquered nations laughing as a roman boot steps on their neck. nice cherry picking the only 3 to defy them.

And romes greatest enemies were the germans and the parthians the parthians being a horse cav army. Rome built up its cav heavily sorry but china doesnt have the armour to handle the heavy infantry backed by combined arms

@@KyleTremblayTitularKtrey lol rome got smashed by the parthians in Crassus folly showing the weakness of Roman armies to cavalry which would continue all the way up to the hunnic invasions. It’s a moot point anyways since Roman weapons are inferior even if their armor is superior. Shortswords aren’t going to beat halberds (which all the hema larpers nowadays say is the absolute pinnacle of cold weapons).

@@KyleTremblayTitularKtrey the Han professional soldier lie on Range skirmish, artillery and elites Calvary (300k) of them.

Below I will use the simplest explanation to prove that the Mongols are not aliens: First, in the 5,000-year history of the world, there are many Asian nation-state armies that can defeat European countries and colonize Europeans. Asian nations that colonized Europeans in real history: The ancient Persians invaded the Balkans. After the Northern Huns were defeated by the Han Dynasty, they went to Europe to establish the Huns Empire. The Avars colonized Central Europe and invaded the Eastern Roman and Frankish kingdoms. The Bulgars successively invaded Eastern Rome and colonized the Balkans. After the Turks were defeated by the Tang Dynasty, the Seljuks led an army to defeat the Eastern Romans and occupied Asia Minor. The Magyars colonized Central Europe and the Balkans. The Kipchaks colonized Ukraine. The Finns invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus. The Ottomans conquered Eastern Rome and Hungary, and colonized Asia Minor, the Balkans and Central Europe. The Arabs conquered Spain and Italy.

Second, other superpowers that can conquer Europe, but do not want to conquer Europe. Instead, they frequently invaded China and the Iranian plateau. Such as: Han Dynasty, Xiongnu, Rouran, Turkic, Tang Dynasty, Khitan, Ming Dynasty, Seljuk Empire, Timur Empire. Main reasons: First, Europe was poor most of the time, and the nomadic civilization had no barns to loot. Conversely, China has been an agricultural civilization with a large number of granaries from 5,000 years ago, and all nomadic empires would want to rob China. Second, Europe is not the trade center of the land silk road and the sea silk road, so it is impossible to earn high tolls, and it is even more impossible to establish a monopoly trade between the East and the West. Conversely, occupying Xinjiang, Central Asia and the Iranian plateau can completely control the land Silk Road; occupying Egypt, Yemen, Persian Gulf, southern India and Sri Lanka can completely control the Maritime Silk Road. So who would want to occupy Europe? For Asian powers, Europe's most valuable trade traffic locations are in the Balkans, Ukraine and the Gulf of Finland. Therefore, whether it is the ancient Persians, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Finns, Oguss, Mongolians, Ottomans, will have a strong interest in the Ukrainian Balkans and the Gulf of Finland.

Third, the timing of the Mongol conquests of Asia and Europe is great. Before the Tang and Song dynasties, the Chinese hadn't invented a lot of gunpowder weapons. China and the countries around China are the most powerful cold weapon military civilization in the world. The places with the strongest ironmaking technology and the largest number of arsenals are all in China. Huns, Rourans, Turks were all powerful in this era, so they did not have gunpowder weapons to quickly defeat the enemy's army and destroy the enemy's walls and castles. So the time and cost of the war are much greater than the Mongols. But when the Mongols rose, the entire Central Asia, Middle East, Europe, South Asia and Africa would not use gunpowder. Therefore, the time and cost of the Mongolians' westward expedition can be greatly reduced.

Fourth, the timing of the Mongols' rise was great: the early thirteenth century saw constant domestic struggles in both the Jin and Song dynasties. The Song Dynasty wanted to destroy the Jin Dynasty but could not do it, so it exported military technology and consultants to Genghis Khan's grandfather and father to ask the Mongols to destroy the Jin Dynasty, but after the Jin Dynasty was destroyed, the Song Dynasty was also destroyed. But because the Jin and Song dynasties had large armies and gunpowder weapons, it took the Mongols nearly a hundred years to successfully occupy China. In the thirteenth century, the whole of Central Asia and the Middle East was occupied by the Khwarazmian Empire, but the Khwarazmian nobles and the Khanli military generals caused serious struggles in the country during the Mongol invasion. So the Mongolian army defeated Khwarizmo's army in one fell swoop. And destroyed the walls and castles of Central Asia and the Middle East with a large number of artillery.

Fifth, the failure of a large number of military operations in the early days of the Mongol Empire proved that the military discipline and strategy of the Mongols were not strong: The Mamluk Sultanate defeated the Mongols twice in a row and protected Egypt and Syria. The Mongols invaded Korea nine times, and it took fifty years of war with the Koreans to conquer Korea. The Mongols invaded Vietnam three times and failed. The Mongols led a large number of South Korean navies to invade Japan twice, but both suffered heavy losses. The Mongol invasion of Indonesia was a tragic failure.

问题是汉的远程和骑兵是当时最好的，好到不敢提汉的重甲步兵，筒袖铠不比罗马的铠甲差。

That's correct the Romans were destroyed in the Battle of Carrhae by the Parthian horse archers. Lol "AD carry" He plays League of Legends.

The result would be the same , roman victory

@@damiano1174 罗马现在在哪，意大利首都吗？我能看看吗？😂

@@寒风-l7y what ?

youtube.com/@baniadam1541?si=vUx4Rz8VowSuQyGS

Lebih kuat tang sama han bodoh

That's a theory. And if it was true, by your logic, Mameluke/Teutonic Order that stopped Mongolians were superior than Song Empire and Ming Empire.

​​@@alexanderchenf1that's not a good comparison. Western Rome had multiple alliance just to fight off Hun on equal footing whereas we both know if Mongols didnt have infighting and sent in full force, neither teutonic or mamelukes would have their bloodline continued to this day

@@alexanderchenf1 The Ming Dynasty beat the Yuan (mongol) Dynasty. So how are they inferior to the Mameluke/Teutonic Order?

Ever heard of Teutoburg?

@@jorehir wdym?

@@napalmblast6550 Well, that was one of the worst Roman defeats, and it happened because the commander of the Auxiliaries betrayed the Roman general. Auxilia weren't always soooooo reliable... You might guess that they could take advantage of the Chinese war to gain indipendence from Rome.

asterisk

@@foxholeantman6223 and obelix. XD

Han chinese aren’t barbarians

Srry wrong reply

Yeah

Like Carthage?

Yes, prevail enough to be extinct today xD

Hahaha. Westerners has no match.

@@rencechannel2240 Yes we are so great that no one is there to match us. Or what were you intending to say?

Correct But that's not the case everytime

Idk if that was on purpose, but that sounded more like an Asterix easter egg than anything else to me. asterix.fandom.com/wiki/Magic_potion

The Bible prophesied Alexander defeating Persia, destroying Tyre, and also it prophesied the Roman Empire and the European empires based on Rome including the Spanish and British, as I prove in my channel.

@@barbatvs8959 how did the bible prophesize things that happened before it existed 🤨 that's not called a prophecy, but a historical account 🙄

@@bmking1015 So your argument is to lie that the Bible is newer than the Spanish Empire, British Empire ET AL it prophesied, as well as the other ones it prophesied? You're pathetic.

@@barbatvs8959 "I've always found that when people try to convince others of their beliefs it's because they're really just trying to convince themselves.""

Mad Geordie i agree moslty China would have to field millions to take Rome Considering how far Rome is And how unlikely anyone would ever let a massive force walk threw their lands and camp till they reach Rome is unlikely China would have to conquer and destroy everyone they passed to get to Rome The romans could field 2 million men easily But would be at a total lose if they lost those 2 million After that You have 3 million Roman people left in the empire While China would have 56 million people to rely on. But the question is How do you feed and keep 6 or 10 million Chinese men and horsemen alive Considering most of those numbers Wouldn’t even be trained China would rely more on their people then their army As their army wouldn’t be very successful Of course This is if they attacked and marched in Rome Rome could never march on China In my opinion Rome would be better off With their Egyptian gold And Carthage’ trades But if Rome could’ve done one thing Conquer Africa That would’ve been impressive Considering Africa is fucking huge Asides that Rome would win the defense by a long shot Just not the offensive Same with China China would lose the offensive But the defense

@@shadowdeslaar Yes, in a single battle or a short war, Rome would come out on top but a long war of attrition would undoubtedly see China prevail.

Mad Geordie I’m not sure how though. China couldn’t feed millions of its men. Or house them. Or even supply them. And considering Yes they outnumber Rome By blood Rome still has its allies and they alone could put number Rome But that still doesn’t make it any easier or harder Cause they still all know this China has a lot of territory to cross And a shit ton of men to take care of Not to consider horses and women n children alongside slaves if they had them What I’m saying is China would in all ways loose A massive invasion Unless they sent 100 thousand at time They would undoubtedly lose the mass invasion Not sure what you think about that thought and or agree

@@shadowdeslaar You are correct in that battles are only one facet of war. Logistics play a vital, some would say a commanding role and cannot be ignored. It was the combination of vast distances, barren terrain and hostile native cultures that prevented such a clash from actually happening. However, bearing in mind that the Chinese organisation was capable of supporting thousands and thousands of workers building the great wall in equally inhospitable terrain and then organising and supplying the thousands of soldiers that later manned this construction, I think that the Chinese would have been up to the task. It has to be stated though that this was a defensive strategy, vital for national survival so there was ample incentive for this to occur, no matter the cost. Whether there would have been enough drive and cash to sustain an offensive strike almost a quarter of the way around the globe, involving hundreds of thousands of men solely for imperial aggrandisement and conquest is another matter.

Mad Geordie I should say . I wouldn’t ever say China is worse then Rome. I try my best to not be bias. (But wasn’t The Great Wall an attacking wall?). Rome and China had their pros and cons Without a doubt Roman Soldiers were more adaptable to the battlefield I’n their formations and leadership (If I recall The Chinese use crossbows and horseback) Not much involved their. I mean their is . But not like a foot soldier The romans constantly we’re doing things themselves Whilst they did have slaves and some horses It wasn’t much to make a difference Espaiclly if some slaves revolted (Witch isn’t likely) But what makes the Great Wall So good that it makes Their armies stronger. I mean their attacking Rome right? So wouldn’t they have no defensive measures and purely offensive . Making their hope for the wall and their morale for the wall pointless They aren’t defending it . Their invading Romans . Or trying too . And smaller battles over a long time period sure the Chinese would run down the romans But unless they lived right next to them They’d have more problems then true blood Romans They now have to do with others And Roman wealth Not hard to get Brittana charioteers and horsemen . Not saying British would make a difference I’m saying Roman wealth and territory makes a difference

would have loved to see an episode of Asterix n Obelix ... 'mis-adventures in Han China'

Why?

​@@mint8648 manpower

​@@mint8648 oh and because the chinese forces the Huns out of Asia and then the romans got beaten by the huns

@@akriegguardsman tru

​@@akriegguardsmanI agree but Rome's succesors destroyed China in One and a Half Millenium later...

The Latin Caesar did want to conquer the Persian Empire, but the Chinese emperor never wanted to conquer India.

Gupta empire would destroy han empire if they try to conquer it there's a reason china didn't invade india tibet invaded Karkota empire but was badly crushed by Lalitaditya

@@andrewbehan4982 I'd also like to point out that Afghanistan invaded India once. It was called the Mughal empire.

@@RandomYT05_01 babur was from Uzbekistan but y'know being one of the strongest empires at that time aurangzeb defeating the british empire they lost to ahom 17 times imagine losing to an small empire when you have 24% of the world's gdp couldn't be me

@@RandomYT05_01 skandagupta slew so many huns that there is a town called huno/huna hari in tribute to his hun slaying gupta empire was the richest empire and strongest empire at that time samdragupta is called the napelon of india/east because of him being undefeated and winning hundreds of battles

Han China practices a conscription system analogous to modern national service. Every able bodied man must serve for 2 years in the military upon reaching certain age. Many choose to remain in the military after completing the 2 years terms of service and become professional soldiers. Most professional soldiers come from poorer families and life in the military offers better opportunities. Their families are taken care by the state and receive regular financial and food aid. After completing 20 years of service, they are discharged from service and receive lands for retirement. For those who choose to return home after completing 2 years of military service, they must serve in their home units and must drill constantly to maintain their military prowess. The purpose of the conscription system is to train as many soldiers as possible during peace times. When wars do break out, large of numbers are mobilized on the short notice. It estimated that Han Dynasty can mobilize around a million strong army though 700,00 is the most realistic number with at least 200,00 are professional soldiers. Even if the remaining half a million men may not be professional soldiers, they are well-trained and better prepared for war due to years of constant military drills.

@@MrLantean Han dynasty conduct multiple big expensive campaign against the Xiongnu and won decisively. No shield is big and tough enough to protect you from constant barrage of arrow and explosive. People portrayed the Roman have professional soldier, neither the Han? their professional soldier weren't walking on foots. Their strength relies on horseback and there were 300k of them, the Han had cataphract 1000 years before the Roman.

Ballistae rate of fire is too slow. The larger size also means its much harder to hit anything but large infantry formations. Cavalry would be a no-go. Besides the Chinese also had something similar known as acruballistae. A later period ancient Chinese source gives it about 525m range. Roman Ballistae were 460m. These are extreme ranges, usually they would be used much closer. In practical combat, they both likely had very similar range and so neither had a real advantage. I cannot verify the capabilities of the Han Chinese acruballistae. The source describe it as capable of destroyer ramparts and towers, but that seems like a exaggeration. Such damage is usually caused by siege engines and not field artillery such as ballistae/acruballistae. But Similarly, we don't know the exact capabilities of Roman ballistae either. Both will most definitely go through shield and body armor. But no idea if it can go through field fortifications.

@@neurofiedyamato8763 Roman ballistae had over 700 metres range. Hell, nick watts' firefly ballista even gets up to 900 metres plus

@@elchudcampeador5642 Chinese had traction trebuchet. The first of its kind. It would then be developed into counterweight trebuchet and be used often in siege warfare in medieval Europe. Chinese also built star fort type fortresses early on because of their advanced siege machines and actual cannons, which would also be further refined as the tech leaked towards the West

@@doldemenshubarti8696 Traction trebuchets are fairly weak contraptions which need large crews of dozens of men to achieve ranges of 100-200 metres tops, save rare cases. It is easier to assemble and transport but that is about it, in range and accuracy it gets completely outmatched by torsion artillery or even large fixed triple bows that the chinese also used As for cannons, that is not really tangential to a discussion about the Han empire

@@elchudcampeador5642 it isnt range that makes trebuchet relevant, but what it throws. it regularly threw 400+ lb projectile very quickly. and while they didnt have gun powder, they did in fact make proto-gun powder and had saltpeter production sites which they would hurl using said trebuchets or use disposable bamboo devices by infantry or used as crude grenades

Nice one!!!!

I think they would have traded with each other

@@yjohn1055 you can say the same about han china

Jenkins incorrect, Rome did not exist in 1000 BC did it? However, the ethnic groups and dynastically power structure along with the language, art, and cultural traditions of China existed 1000 years prior to even 1000 BCE. China slowly expanded and employed the most successful assimilation tactics ever and China did not have a system of systematic slavery and the only dynasty ever to employ such a large system of slavery is the Yuan dynasty under the Mongols. China did not conquer any other large ethnic groups as the nanyue, the only even comparable ethnic group at this time had been conquered for 300 years and even before their conquest had intermingled and became pretty similar to the Han culture. Also China had already employed a massive campaign against their barbarian neighbors while Rome did not, and even if the Mongolia and Turkic threat had somewhat came back, the border was not nearly as fragile and China had the Great Wall and subject vassals which provide a barrier from invasive enemies.

@@bigbrothersinnerparty297 China is more successful than the Romans in cultural assimilation. 4 centuries of Han rule had resulted the amalgamation of various cultural and ethnic groups into a single cultural identity: Han Chinese. Even after Han Dynasty had fallen with its northern territories taken by various nomadic peoples, Han Chinese cultural identity remain strong. Like the fall of the Western Roman Empire, nomadic peoples created kingdoms of their own on capture Han territories. The methods of administration are modeled on Han Dynasty government and Han Chinese are employed to staff its bureaucracy. The nomadic rulers themselves began to embrace many aspects of Han Chinese culture and after several generations of cultural assimilation and intermarriages, their descendants identified themselves as Han Chinese. In contrast with Western Europe, Germanic rulers embraced many aspects of Roman culture and intermarried with local Romanized population but their descendants never identified themselves as Romans. The term Roman is now identified as inhabitants of Rome while the term Han Chinese is identified to the largest cultural and ethnic group in the world.

MrLantean of course I know that

Another point to add to this is the roman empire were quick to adapt their enemies tactics or unit types such as Cataphracts (From Middle East), Pikemen (From Makedon), two handed weapons (From germanic tribes), Curve bows (From Huns), Horse archers (From nomadic peoples), Mail armours (From Scythians),

Kenai24 that’s not even a question. The one with jets and automatic rifles and missiles would win.

@@Decius. And doesn't have an oil shortage.

You cannot assume the Romans would just adapt the crossbow in this situation. I do agree they would likely win. In the end it likely will relay on the quality of the troops, the leadership of the generals, the terrain and the quality of equipment. China is filled with mysticism and opposed information. the fact that much of the information is called into question makes it hard to prove which side would win for sure.

@@speedy01247 every weapon the Roman has was adopted from their enemies. I think except for just one which was a Roman original, forgot if it's the pilum or gladius. It's only a matter of time until the Romans under good leadership adopt the crossbow. More likely they're end up finding some allies in the area who can use crossbows and add them to the auxilia I think, if that's possible.

Actually, the chinese army was also a professional army. Its only during the three kingdom period when warlords had to use peasants to maintain an army that has a decent size to look “ scary “

That's an interesting take. Would you recommend any good books or podcasts on the topic?

China is probably the most laughed at and lame country ever and it always has been, so believe what you want but the Chinese are dishonorable wimps

@@kevinmak1781 no it was never even close they've never had a professional army they've always been weak and cowardice

@@nicoferino2592 Hey, you're welcome to hold whatever prejudices or personal grudge against Chinese people, but that's got no bearing on how history went down, bud. Whether you think they're dishonorable wimps or not, what went down, went down, what they built, they built. It's not as if the modern-day Italians exactly mirror their Roman ancestors colorfully.

@@martinjr.9660 You are incorrect sir. Many times the Roman army marched from Rome to the Middle East and almost all of their battles were on land...lol. Also, this video is about if the two armies fought in a hypothetical situation thus making your entire argument moot. Next time try to actually refute points being made.

@@martinjr.9660 You like to say a lot without saying anything at all. You clearly know nothing of Roman history by what you are saying. Rome marched troops up through Italy across Europe all the way into Persia for several battles. No ships involved. And again, this video is placing two armies against each other directly so your repeated attempt to use shipping as an argument means nothing since not even China could bring its army to Roman territory to face them so your own argument can be used to prove China could not defeat Rome. Also, why are you saying things like "The Roman armory varies from time to time" when this video is about a SET TIME PERIOD? You are using weak deflecting arguments to not talk about the scenario in the video.

@@martinjr.9660 I know about the Han dynasty, it is one of the periods I studied. If I could chose to speak to one person that has ever lived in history one of my two choices would be Zhuge Liang. I respect that man greatly...but you bringing up that China used the equipment they used due to who they had to fight only furthers my point. Rome would have one, easily due to those differences in equipment coupled with their military tactics...that is how they formed an empire in the first place. They had better equipment and tactics.

The Han crossbows would penetrate Chinese armor all the time lmao the Han crossbows had a force of upwards of 187 joules historum.com/threads/6-stone-han-crossbow-power-revealed.90561/

@@thefinest7574 Literally the comment under disproves this stupid fact. I thought chinese were good at math, but obviously not. Also the europeans would have been larger and stronger than the typical chinese and would have been wearing superior armor, weapons, training. And i find it funny how you talk about how women would have also fought against them. Maby you should look at how the Romans slaughtered armies many many times their size Eg: The germans and so on. Rome was a power house not only politically, but also economically and military. China would have fallen from the inside out and even if the armies met what you could expect would be a one sided slaughter. Stop coming with you nonsence shit.

han>huns>weak Rome tang>turk>Europe

@@兔子王-q5l sure whatever you say

In the Hundred Years' War between the Han and Huns, the Han finally destroyed the Huns Empire, and later Rome collapsed under the attack of the Huns who fled to the west.

The advantage of the cavalry of the Han Dynasty was greatly underestimated. The difficulty of the Roman infantry to face the Huns cavalry is proof.

Technically the Han empire was already in shambles at this point so Rome was governed better but both were to big for their way of governing.

@E.A.G 65 not rly dude. Asian is BIG and I don't think u should judge the all of the Asians by simply one of them.

@E.A.G 65 Seems like someone didn't read the Art of War.

@E.A.G 65 ever heard about Mongols and their tactics?

firefrostcat62 Control over Mesopotamia shouldn't be enough to tip the scales. It would be like saying that Poland would beat Germany if they controlled Pomerania.

@@axelandersson6314 No Rome was overall stronger in wealth, stability,... until that bitch Commodus ruined it all.

Rome had the largest fleet in the world before they even were at 1/5th of their peak size and population.

that would make sense. han cavalry would dominate on land because the chinese honed their skill by continuously fighting the most ferocious cavalry at the time. rome's biggest rivals were down south beyond the mediterrenean which were separated by a large open sea resulting in an improvement to their naval capabilities.

For the first hundred years, Rome had won and lost battles with Parthia resulting a stalemate. During the reign of Trajan, Rome simply invaded and defeated a weakened Parthia resulting from an invasion by nomadic invaders from the east and a ongoing civil war. Rome simply defeated a weakened adversary. The same reason why Rome's old enemies, Germanic warriors, were able defeat the Roman Empire. The old military prowess of Rome had long gone by then. Germanic warriors simply defeated a weakened Roman Empire. Han army is also well-armed, well-equipped and well-trained. Han soldiers are equipped in iron lamellar and lacquered leather armor. Lacquered leather armor provides adequate protection as the army emphasizes on mobility. Han army do not simply used its mass number to overwhelm the enemies on a battlefield. Han generals are well-versed in tactics and strategies and will analyze the strength and weakness of the Roman army before coming up with a battle plan. One method of defeating a Roman army is to choose a battle site they are unbale to fight in their usual battle formation. One such site is enclosed environment like thick forest. This is how 3 Roman Legions are defeated and destroyed by Germanics in 9AD at Teutonberg Forest.

MrLantean they were defeated three days of trouble . Not just a forest. It was also betrayal . If the attack wasn’t organzid by a German trained to fight like a Roman.(would t doubt he’d win the ambush). The Chinese military is so far fetched when it comes to history. 904 A.D was when gunpowder was used. And yet people consider gunpowder to be used agsint romans. Otherwise. It’s a proven fact for the most part. Roman Heavy Infantry beats any other infantry. Spears Phanalx Axe men Mace men Swords men Archers Even javelin men . The Romans soldier was a tank that had a soft under belly. If you can deform their formation. You have a victory . But if your China and have cavalry more then infantry . Then you need flat terrain period Otherwise cavalry agsint romans on uneven terrain isn’t gonna do anything

The defeat at Teutonberg Forest demonstrates a weakness in Roman military. The Romans are unable to utilize their battle formation and are forced to fight in single combat which Germanic warriors are exceled at. From the military equipment and their battle formations, Romans are trained to fight as heavy infantry soldiers and they performed most efficiently in flat open terrains. Han cavalry is not a heavy cavalry like the cataphracts although cataphracts appeared in Chinese cavalry during the early 4th century CE. Han cavalry is developed to deal with nomadic warriors and relied more on speed, mobility and maneuverability. It will be suicidal to charge into a formation of Roman soldiers using their famed testudo formation. Han military has an array of siege weapons and handheld weapons like crossbows. Theycanbe used to force the Romans to break into smaller groups where Han army can used a combination of infantry and cavalry attacks on individual groups of Roman soldiers.

MrLantean I’ve fought with a shield and gladius. Agsint two other people(armed with shield and spear and duel swords.) I was able to protect myself with the large shield. But my sword was so short it almost was always noticeably Easy to evade . My shield was the hardest to get threw. That being said. A much more trained legionary with real equipment fighting real Germans Would be different. Not just from my experience. But historical accounts. When Romans are in formation they are better off. It takes extremely broken terrain to stop a formation This inclsudes( heavy mud with constant dips in depth and width. And to add more hilly terrain were puddles of water could build.(sounds very ambushy) and not favorable by any smart general. Dense forests are almost always a NO. Caesar wouldn’t ever bring his men into a terrible battlefield. (He would do his best to keep formation) Only terrain that separates men from men and disrupt the wall formation . So really. If Roman soldiers were terrible. Then why is their weakness such a situational thing.?

这只是理论上，如果大汉和罗马真真正正的来打一架，我觉得会是平手，因为罗马的重步兵和高卢骑兵虽然可以压制敌方，但是很有可能因为不熟悉地形而失效，而汉军在打仗前会习惯性地检查自己的装备和侦察地形，这点和当年越共游击美国人有点相似。 理论上讲，罗马人的作战方式在中国的边疆沙漠地带可能不起效，但是大汉的军队也没办法跑那么远，毕竟中亚这种地方很不适合当时的汉人军队。

Idk bro they'd be caught in the middle

real winner, every nomadic tribe in central Asia and the parthians

Well, population talks.

Google/RU-vid is blocked in mainland China and they can't come here unless they have a VPN. Half the comments here are already fanboys who don't know anything about one side or the other and just denigrate the other side.

chinese people say If the western internet picks up this video there'll be a crap storm of odd comments

@@Intranetusa You are severely underestimating the total manpower of Han. Han sent almost 100,000 infantry and cavalry to attack Alexander Eshate of Bactria in 101 BCE just because the Emperor HEARD that they had good horses. He just casually gave away 100,000 soldiers on a side-assignment because he simply had so many troops to spare. China had a population of 55 million where conscription and military service was mandatory, it had a standing professional army of 1 million and very likely tens of millions more when it comes to drafting. Han would have drowned Rome in manpower alone. This is not to mention advancement in weaponries that Han had such as the semiautomatic repeating crossbows and mangonels. Don't forget that the Han successfully repelled the Xiongnu westwards, who became the Huns and several centuries later directly caused the total collapse of Western Roman Empire because Romans just couldn't repelled them on their borders.

@@devilhunterred You are underestimating the manpower of the Romans, confusing the military recruitment system of the Han Dynasty, mistaking what a professional standing army is, and relying too much on stereotypes. First, the Romans also heavily relied on conscription all the way to the time of the Principate under the first emperor Augustus, and still relied on conscription (but to a lesser extent) afterwards. When the Romans were a smaller Republic, they still drafted close to 800,000 Romans and Italian allies during the Second Punic wars. The idea that the Romans only relied on volunteers is incorrect. In the 3rd century BC, the Romans threw away plenty of troops during the Second Punic War too - they sent 40,000 men at Trebia, 30,000 men at Lake Trasimene, and 90,000 men at Cannae - all within the span of 1 year. Most of these troops were lost in defeats against the Carthaginians. If you add up the numbers, the Romans suffered more causalities in this 1 year than the two armies of Han Wudi did in their expedition against Ferghana. A century later, the Romans lost over 100,000 troops in a single battle at Arausio but bounced back with more conscripted and volunteer armies to fight the Cimbri invaders after expanding their recruitment. Second, the Han did not have a "professional standing army" of 1 million - not even close. The milita army of the Western Han had a rotating conscription system where soldiers trained for a year and served for 1-2 years. They were cycled out regularly and didn't fight for a living, so they are not a professional army and not really a standing army. The formal professional armies were the standing Northern army and other units around the capital, which numbered around 20,000-30,000. The semi-professional frontier garrisons who were military colonists numbered in the tens of thousands up to maybe 100,000. During the time of Han Wudi, criminals, poor, and people of bad repute who constantly reenlisted formed a professional or semi-professional army that numbered between 100,000-150,000. Thus, if you add up the numbers of the Western Han military under Han Wudi, you end up with a combined total of maybe 250k of professionals and semi-professionals, and then supported by several hundred thousand non-professional rotated conscripts. This is roughly the same as the late Roman Republic/early Empire's manpower in the 1st century BC - during the final Civil War of the Roman Republic, Octavian and Marc Antony had about 500,000 troops composed of professionals, semi-professionals, and conscripts, though more would be on the professional/semi-professional side as the pay became lucrative. Fourth, there is no direct evidence that the Xiongnu became the Huns. There is only indirect evidence that only the northwestern branch of the Xiongnu migrated west, might have mixed with many different other nomadic tribes, and eventually became the Huns. Furthermore, the Western Huns only fought the already weakened Western Roman Empire and didn't even fight the Eastern Roman Empire. The Huns and their Germanic allies were also defeated by an alliance of Germans and the weakened Western Roman Empire. So that doesn't really say much about either the Romans or the Huns. And it was the Germanic tribes who actually defeated the Western Roman Empire. If you learn about Chinese history, you'll know that the Jin Dynasty (which reunited the Three Kingdoms and was basically a continuation of Han Dynasty style government) suffered internal strife and then got invaded by the [weakened] southern Xiongnu, Di, Xianbei, etc tribes and northern China was completely taken over and formed barbarian kingdoms while the Southern Jin became a weak rump state. Finally, if you look at more credible sources of the Han Dynasty talking about the army sizes and number of troops they sent against the Xiongnu and others, you are looking at individual army sizes between 5,000 to 70,000, or up to 100,000 for a mix of non-professional and prof/semi-professional troops. If you look at the largest professional armies of the Eastern Han Dynasty under Ban Chao who campaigned against the remaining northern Xiongnu, he had armies of Han troops + local auxiliaries + mercenaries that added up to a max of maybe 60,000-70,000. General Li Ling under the time of Han Wudi set out with only an army of 5,000 troops against the Xiongnu. Li Guangli who was sent to fight Ferghana had an army of 40-50,000 in the first invasion and up to 100,000 in the second invasion. The idea that ancient Chinese armies numbered in the millions or hundreds of thousands for each army is a fictional stereotype.

Elder of Zion well, he could , but you know them, they love to fight so ...

Asteris and Obelix: Nah, I'd use toon force attacks

The CA TW3K team should've gone with archaeology too. There are a ton of archaeological discoveries of weapons and armor of the Han Dynasty from recent years that the 3K team seems to have overlooked....such as 5 foot long steel two handed swords, long pikes and pike-lengthed halberds, some really cool looking armors (eg. armored sleeves, armored collars, etc), records of armory inventories, etc.

That would be nearly impossible the only somewhat reliable source is the records of the three kingdoms that is a biography for different historical peoples, and in those biographies, there are conflicts too. Like a person was executed in the biography of one person, but the person escaped prison in another person's biography. A person might have refused a position according to one biography, but accepted the position in another biography, and this was in the same source by the same person. Or you can look at peasant's tale, which would be that his great general killed half the enemy army himself, and everyone saw that with their own eyes. Or that his general was stabbed twenty times before dying or something of the sort.

@@peiranzhang4283 OK here are the sources you should use for the Three Kingdom period, 汉官仪，三国志，后汉书，续汉书， 通典，局延汉间，中国经济史考证，中国经济通史，东汉人口史，东汉的豪族，汉魏晋军府制度研究，魏晋南北朝禁卫武官制度研究，西汉和唐朝前期的政枢和政治制度，魏晋都督制的渊源和定形，I can go on and on and on.

@@qimingzhang3940 是，但是那些youtube上为了写一个视频会看那么多书吗？他们看的懂中文吗？

@@peiranzhang4283 Well, they shouldn't write about Han China and pretend like we don't know certain things. We do. Some of which are translated, some of which are not. But basic research will tell you there are conclusive evidence that WESTERN Han already have stirrups. They may not be the same stirrups people use in the 10th century, but they are stirrups. We have carvings of them from the Western Han. Plenty of our knowledge of Rome came from carving and statues, why do we accept Roman art and carvings but not Chinese art and carving? I also don't know how much mounted horse archers China has. I know plenty of mounted crossbowman, but only the You province was known for producing mounted archers, but these are the typical mounted archers who will charge after they shoot you. And he talks about how the Chinese cavalry don't have experience. What the fuck is he smoking.

As a canadian, the philippines

As a Filipino myself we can't attack Canada due to our not so powerful army but we can defend our country because most of our forces are know to fight in Guerrilla Tactics and so we can put up a good hella resistance but on technology and machines of war I wont count on it.

@@joaqincastro5613 Canada Will crush phillipines in a month

Canada

@@joaqincastro5613 no one would win tbh cz filipino forces cant reach canada but canadian might be able because of allies near the area but there is no way they will be able to acually land

The Xiongnu most likely were not Huns

⁠@@abdoolthegreat69Where is hun come from？

@@Derrick-y8t I do not know

@@abdoolthegreat69 So，why you think hun isn't xiongnu？

@@Derrick-y8t No evidence that they were

Do ittt

Georgia is home to Ft. Benning, which includes Airborne school, Ranger School, the Maneuver Center of Excellence (armor/cavalry school, where I trained back in the day), the U.S Army Sniper School, and more. It is true these are mostly TRADOC units (training and doctrine command), but if the resources and ample miliatry expertise possessed at Ft Benning was required in a hypothetical war against a small state like the nation of Georgia, the US state of Gerogia would utterly crush them. Georgia happens to be the state where much of the training, and therefore expertise, of combat MOSes in the US army is located. In my opinion, a small country like Georgia wouldn't have much of a chance. Hope that helps answer your question.

Lmao

Since Bactria was more in the northeast of Parthia, the Romans had no way to actually fight them. Parthia in particular was larger than Bactria and could field an army enough for a Roman Legion. They had skilled horse archers and were more militaristic compared to their Greco-Bactrian counterparts. Bactrians had a sophisticated civilization though and were center of the trade between the East and the West.

Armchair warrior anyway the Romans conquered Parthian and Sassanid capital Ctesiphon, and the Roman Emperor “Trajan” actually defeated Parthian Empire, but he did not have the time to fully annex it because he died.

china had huge armies because they had the population, geography, and relatively monolithic culture (everybody speaks the same language or close enough to it) that made huge armies possible. One of the most amazing things about the Roman's was their ability to bring in soldiers from so many different cultures and languages and make them a cohesive fighting force. Once you have those 3 it becomes far easier to equip and train those soldiers. The problem is that chinas system is set up to eventually lead to civil war, it's just that every time they fall apart/ get conquered the new ruling group will refer to themselves as chinese. It would be like the huns conquering Rome, setting up shop, and saying that they were the roman empire now

@@GigglesClown The politics of the Chinese Han Dynasty were actually more stable than the Roman Empire, because the Han Empire was the eldest son inheritance system. When the emperor died, everyone understood who would inherit the throne. The emperors of the Roman Empire were inherited in parallel, and civil strife often occurred in order to compete for the throne.

@@MrLi-fd4hs David Lee its true that china during the same period as the roman empire had fewer civil wars numerically but on the other hand chinas civil wars laster far longer. While there were a few civil wars before the Han collapse after that it pretty much continous civil war. From the start of the yellow turban rebellion in the mid 180s china would experience constant civil war, transitioning into the warlords period until the formation of Shu, Wu, and Wei Kingdoms around 220 which lasted until 280 AD. That ended with the jinn dynasty finally unifying china. They held it together for about 10 years before descending back into civil war during the war of the 8 princes which if I'm remember right then immediately switched into the sixteen kingdoms period. From there it switched into the northern and southern dynasty period which would finally conclude around the late 500s with the sui dynasty taking over and then being succeeded by the Tang who finally kept things together for the next few hundred years. So while both empire were in existence rome had more short civil wars (the 3rd century was terrible for both) in general. While China had fewer civil wars after the collapse of the Han dynasty, they lasted for far longer in terms of years spent fighting while both entities were in existence.

Neither one would reach eachother. They don't rely on each others production either, so this war would be pointless.

@@xeji4348 thats not the point

I'm Canadian and I had no idea we were gonna have a war. Man, we'd be in trouble. there are a lot of Filipinos here.

To barbarians!? Never! If it was another Roman however.....

Lol

Good sum-up

acually china had a bigger navy than the romans

De mierda era, militarmente roma superaba ​@@destructo_mamba_embergb

Now justify it..

@@destructo_mamba_embergb all for crossing rivers only.

Legio Aeterna

david o sullivan 1,000 years ago Nukes are you joke to me

No need for nukes，Lu Bu is enough

@@bruhlel6674 c'mon is a joke

naked is allowed

yes

I don't recall seeing Han with traction trebuchets. Most Chines siege weapons are man powered. Also, the big siege crossbows are more like Northern Wei/Tang era. Han crossbow would have problems with Roman armor also. Mostly because the Han apparently lost the methods of constructing bronze Qing crossbow. I am sure the crossbow would still be a problem because Roman armor isn't that great, but it wouldn't be too big of a problem because Han crossbow also isn't that great.

@@qimingzhang3940 Incorrect. 1) Traction trebuchets have been around since the Warring States period, and references to them are found several times in Records of the Three Kingdoms. Tsao Tsao destroyed many of Yuan Shao's archer towers or siege towers with traction trebuchets at the battle of Guandu. 2) The Qing is the 17th century AD Manchurian Dynasty. If you're talking about Qin, then the Han actually had better crossbows. They did not lose bronze casting technology and created upgraded versions of Qin triggers with extra features like trigger boxes that stabilized into the stock and aiming sights. Examples: imgur.com/JUvmIlz imgur.com/ooXz9Tr 3) Roman armor is actually pretty good. Riveted chainmail was used well into the 17th century and is impervious to sword slashes and most thrusts. 4) Big siege crossbows have existed since the Warring States period and there are lots of references to it. There are even large siege versions mounted on chariots and wagons. The Han era siege crossbows mounted on chariots and armored wagons called "Military Strong Carts." They used these types of weapons against nomadic cavalry, especially when they formed defensive wagon forts when surrounded by Xiongnu cavalry. The Huai Nan Zi ca. 120 B.C. describes a Wu Gang Che or Military Strong Cart, one of the few references to Han era field artillery: "Ancient soldiers were armed only with bows and swords; their spears had no pick-axes and their bills no hooks. But the soldiers of the late times have had to be equipped with battering rams for attack, and shields against the arrows; they shoot with multi-bolt crossbows which are lashed to carriages for the fight." The Han Shu or Records of the Han, says Li Ling's campaign of 99 B.C. used of a Han era siege crossbows/arcuballista. While fighting a defensive battle in steppe territory, Li Ling's army used wagon mounted giant crossbows in a defensive formation to defend against the attacking Shanyu cavalry. Siege crossbows and multishot siege crossbows mounted on carts and wheels since the Warring States centuries earlier, see quote from Needham: "The crossbow constructed in large size and mounted on a framework or carriage (Fig. 6) we shall call the arcuballista." ... " In Chinese texts the terms lien nu I (compound crossbow) or chhi nu2 (crossbow on acarriage) signify the multiple-bolt arcuballisla, while the multiple-spring arcuballista, though going by many names, may be recognised under the term chhuang (crossbow secured on a bed or framework). " ... Qin period siege crossbows: " The magicians whom he had sent on expeditions...saying that large sea-monsters (ta chiao) had prevented it; they therefore proposed that good marksmen with multiple-bolt arcuballistae should be sent to sea to destroy them. The emperor ordered that this should be done, and himself stood on guard with one of these machines waiting for some of the monsters to appear." Warring States siege crossbow: "The multiple-bolt arcuballista with which the rampart must be equipped is mounted on a carriage which has two axles and three wheels on a rectangular framework like that of a wagon" Source: Needham p. 185-189 "SCIENCE AND CIVILISATION IN CHINA VOLUME 5 CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY" monoskop.org/images/2/29/Needham_Joseph_Science_and_Civilisation_in_China_Vol_5-6_Chemistry_and_Chemical_Technology_Military_Technology_Missiles_and_Sieges.pdf

@@Intranetusa Cao Cao used catapult no? Do we have any evidence that it's a trebuchet and not a catapult? You are right about the Qin crossbow, I was wrong on that. The big siege crossbow I am thinking about was the Song era bow.

@@qimingzhang3940 The term "catapult" refers to a torsion-type weapon where the energy comes from twisted animal sinew. These were used by the Greeks and Romans until the early middle ages. The ancient Chinese did not use torsion based siege weapons so Tsao Tsao could not have used catapults. Sometimes the word catapult is loosely applied to other weapons such as the magonel (also known as traction trebuchet), but technically magonels are not catapults. The siege weapons used by Tsao Tsao were lever type traction trebuchets powered by men instead of animal sinew. Note, I'm referring to a traction trebuchet and not the larger counterweight trebuchet introduced by Mongols from Persia during the Song Dynasty. As for the big siege crossbows, yes, the Song Dynasty were known for very large siege crossbows and other types such as giant triple arcuballista crossbows. Other types of large siege crossbows were used by the Han Dynasty, Qin, and as early as the Warring States era as reference in my Needham source.

@@qimingzhang3940 the man powered ones are called traction trebuchet. While the the ones the romans used are torsion trebuchet, which was only adopted by china from the muslims.

What a joke.

@Vlnxd Roa they automatically assumed that all other empires could magically survive the massive attack from barbarians and maintine internal stability without elite professional soliders. If the arguments is which kind of professional training was more reasonable, then I will be more happy to have a discussion on.

The Han Empire's army wasn't a giant mass of poorly armed peasants as that is a huge misconception. The Han army was composed of professionals, militias, and mercenaries/auxiliaries. The militia portion was trained for 1 year and served for 1-2 years. Roman armies during the time of Vegetius were trained for ~4 months according Vegetius' De Re militari. Of course, professional Roman legions would have more experience on average because they would accumulate more experience through campaigning, but Han levied militia troops actually received much more upfront training than legionaires....so they would still be competently trained. Let's not forget that the Romans still used conscription to levy troops even after the Marian reforms - especially during times of need or constant warfare. Pompey conscripted legions during his civil war with Caesar. Germanicus levied legions after the battle of Teutonberg Forest and Marcus Aurelius raised several legions through conscription during the Marcomannic Wars. There isn't anything wrong with levied conscripted troops either - the pre-Marian Roman armies were basically a levied conscript militia and they defeated the professional mercenary armies of Carthage and the semi-professional armies of the Seleucids and Macedonians. Furthermore, the Han Army never numbered in the millions, and the Romans at times used conscription to raise huge numbers as well (eg. 800,000 drafted for the Second Punic War, or 400,000 legionaires + more support troops quickly raised during the Octavian-Antony civil war).

@@Intranetusa You are talking about the W. Han Empire only. The E. han has removed the military drills and 2 years of service requirement enforcement if not the requirement altogether.

@@qimingzhang3940 I read that military service requirements during the Eastern Han weren't totally removed, but were greatly lessened and could be avoided through taxes. They still did have well trained militia troops on the frontier to supplement the regulars and semi-regular armies, while the training for militia in the safe inner provinces became substandard by the end of the Eastern Han.

RIP Parthia.

phahahah

Serbia vs Mongolia

Trebuchets were best used against walls in a siege, they were not as good in field battles, the only reason Alexander used them in a field battle in Thrace was because he was planning to besiege a city when the enemy attacked, and even then all the catapults did was scare the enemy.

I dunno about the road part, China had a well integrated road system dating to at least the first Qin dynasty (one of the lasting Qin achievements was standardizing the road system) However I'm pretty confident that China had a fuckton better river transportation than Rome, due to their extensive use of canal construction. Their geography is way better for canal transportation. Their whole mythos states that China started because of needing a political system to manage canals lol.

@@konstantinosnikolakakis8125 Alexander didn't use trebuchets. They weren't introduced to Europe until much later.

@@RocketPropelledMexican Not surprised if that's the case, just looked up "Han dynasty roads" and wasn't able to find any maps or anything of the sort. Guess it's what I get for lazy research. Now were these just covering major trade routes like the Royal Road of Persia and Grand Trunk Road of the Maurya? Or were they an intensive system that cover the whole empire like that of Rome and the Inca? As for river navigation, yes China certainly did have a leg up their (all though the Romans didn't exactly let the Rhine and Danube go to waste). China's density of navigable rivers and many canals linking them are a plus, I'm just not sure how it stacks up against the Mediterranean which is similarly an internal water way, but not as limited in terms of where it can carry you.

​@@thechannelimashamedof2361 Not a lot of english sources speak of Han Dynasty roads, probably because it was the earlier Qin Dynasty that really went on a massive road construction spree to y'know rule over his newly conquered country. The Han just organically expanded and renovated it. A lot of the smaller chinese states before and in between the two dynasties also constructed their own roads, Qin made them all the same width. For the Han, Shudao in particular is a mountain road network known for enabling the conquest of the difficult terrain of the Sichuan basin. You'd have to read chinese sources to get more of an idea I think. For comparing, I think it's two very different geographies and really not comparable. China has a strong internal network due to its heartland being plains and river systems suitable for transport. However it did have much weaker external connections. Rome definitely had much better foreign trade routes due to its proximity to the somewhat stable Near East cradle of civilizations and exploited its "Mare Nostrum" to full effect. China cannot do the same. Most of their land neighbors had been conquered or were too insignificant. Their only reliably reachable civilization of decent development are the Korean states, which are too small. The only reachable area with enough economic power to even compare to chinese economic size would have been India, which came with tons of problems. There's no inland sea a la the Mediterranean, they have to deal with unsecured sea lanes vulnerable to pirates/independent states who are too distant to subjugate (e.g. the Wokou Japanese), and in addition much harsher ocean weather. Overland transport via the silk road is limited by the massive obstacles of the southeast asia jungle mountains, the Himalayas, a notoriously harsh desert, and nomadic tribes who were opportunistic raiders at best and conquerors of China itself at worst. It takes almost A YEAR at best to get to the edges of India. Try visualizing the route of the silk road on google maps and note all the harsh terrain it has to pass through, and how far it is away from China's power base.

The northern Germanic barbarian defeated by Rome was finally defeated by the Huns, and the Huns easily defeated the Western Roman army.

@@yunli3576 Not really. The Huns under atilla where brutal where able to win battles. But the Roman where able to score such a victory that Huns never truly recover. And eventually the huns would be destroyed the Germanic Tribes. Matter of fact, it was Germanic Tribes that put end to the western empire. The Germanics where quite possibly the most successful of Rome enemies as they would form the basis of west post Rome.

You're right, numbers alone don't win battles. But they are an important consideration.

To be fair, i would suspect Rome and China have the same number of men. As a matter of fact, the Han Chinese have been outnumbered as well as out horse in several battles against the northern steppe tribes. I would think Rome and Han share an equal amount of military power.

Large numbers with whole fields of army armed with repeated crossbow will have them sit in their turtle shell and die. Much like how they were pinned by the Parthians at the battle of Carrhae, only much much worse.

Ah, thanks for the info.

Don’t forget about the Chinese Kung fu air brigades

Don't forget that the Romans also sacked from Parthia some Sumerians space/alien ships(like the one Gilgamesh is riding in fate zero).

Eagles vs dragons.

wow. lol.

You do realize you're talking about the culture that already built first iteration of the Great Wall? And more canals than the rest of the world put together at this point? Not to mention they worship a hydraulic engineer (Yu the Great) as their deity?

@@day2148 Yea not to mention, by 210 A.D, the Chinese would roughly have something similar to a wheel barrel while Romans still had to pack things on wagons and horses. This clearly shows that the Chinese already had a strong nose for constructing things. Not that i'm trying to underplay Rome's wonders, but Han was quite literally the true counterpart to the Roman Empire.

@@julesbrags1661 actually, yes. Chinese battles are filled with records of fortified frontline encampments being erected within days. The law that conscripts chinese peasants for army service also demand they put in public works service every few years, so pretty much all chinese peasants are well-acquainted with infrastructure construction. They won't be as experienced or well trained, but even the freshest recruit will have worked on construction before.

Because its a big ass desert.

I agree, there are some flaws i found: 1. Han army are less battle hardened? They kick the xiongnu nomads and suppressed the southern tribes like romans fighting germanic tribes. 2. Internal conflicts? Didn't rome also had internal conflicts too? 3. Romans can attack chinese logistics? Welp, the chinese knows well about logistics that its hard to attack logistic points especially if only relying foot legionnaires or light cavalry. 4. Even when fighting in hard terrains like mountains the roman legions will be in disadvantage. Can't fully utilize testudo, slower to move and could be ambushed by chinese crossbowmen in choke points.

@@jansenjunaedi4926 I have seen too many self-claimed Yankee China experts who have never been to China.

@@arrowshade8700 😂😂😂😂😂fr

@@arrowshade8700 To be fair, you don't need to be in China, or Europe to have an interest in certain topics of the world. A bit harsh now, don't you think? By saying so, Binkov should not even exist as a channel, but of course many beg the differ thankfully. +

@@jansenjunaedi4926 No Rome was very stable at this point in history, it was nearing the end of the Pax Romana, a 200 year period of nearly continuous peace and prosperity.

but Rome could still conquer china almost easily