Historic VS thread

[Zain]

Not sure where this should go, but a discusstion poped up today, and I was wondering what the internet thought. The discusstion was if a Roman Legion, after the reformes of Gaius Marius, could have breached and taken the great wall of china, as it was defended at the time. (around 100BC)

The discusstion stalled when we realised that nobody had a good idea of the Chinise millitary strenth at the time, but they concluded that the Romains could probably breach the wall, but not hold it. In summery, could a Roman Legion breach and hold the great wall, as it was defened at around 100BC?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Interesting but probably not relevant fact: There was, the theory goes, a section of the Roman army that did end up in Chinese employ, probably on the Great Wall. They got captured by the Persians, defected to Persia, were sent to the Eastern frontier, defected again to China, fought for China, and eventually settled down in a town on the edge of the Gobi desert, Liquan, where even today, villagers are up to 56% Caucasian in DNA.

About 10,000 soldiers were captured from Rome in the Battle of Carrhae, and when negotiations were made after the battle, the Persians claimed that there were no prisoners to be returned.
Carrhae was 53BC. The negotiations were in 20BC.

Between the two, was the capture of the place the Chinese called Zhizhi, in modern-day Uzbekistan, 36BC. Chen Tang, a chinese general there, recalled soldiers there fighting in a formation clearly recognizable as the testudo formation. 145 of those captured soldiers were moved to an outpost called "Liqian", to defend against Tibetan raids. A 5th century AD history said that the outpost was named after a foreign country.

[Scarlet Knight]

They're Romans; there is nothing they could not accomplish.

[golentan]

They're Romans; there is nothing they could not accomplish.

Ooh, ooh, I know this one! "Defeating Celts."

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure roman formations and siege technology were far superior to what the Great Wall was designed to resist circa 100 B.C. They did have a variety of battlefield engineering procedures, and the turtle formation to protect their advance (allegedly capable of stopping attacks up to and including direct trebuchet hit).

[polity4life]

Also, at that time, the Great Wall was at most a very disjointed series of earthen barriers. It was not until the Ming that the stretches of the Wall were really improved and make picturesque.

Even so, why would the Romans come in from the north? The Greeks already had laid out roads to parts of what is today India and it would seem sensible that the Romans would follow those same paths towards China and enter from its southwest border. Just my two cents.

[Knaight]

Also, at that time, the Great Wall was at most a very disjointed series of earthen barriers. It was not until the Ming that the stretches of the Wall were really improved and make picturesque.

Even so, why would the Romans come in from the north? The Greeks already had laid out roads to parts of what is today India and it would seem sensible that the Romans would follow those same paths towards China and enter from its southwest border. Just my two cents.

That said, it still provides a strong defensive bulwark given enough troops. As numerous civil wars have shown, Chinese military strategy was very good at getting lots of troops, keeping large armies fed, and managing equipment. For instance, in the Three Kingdoms period there were several battles where both sides had hundreds of thousands of troops, and at least one where there were over a million soldiers involved. Then there is the matter of cavalry - horse archers were in use, as well as large, heavily armored cavalry contingents. Roman cavalry stands no chance, and what it comes down to is the infantry. Given the numbers, my money is on China.

[Zain]

Also, at that time, the Great Wall was at most a very disjointed series of earthen barriers. It was not until the Ming that the stretches of the Wall were really improved and make picturesque.

Even so, why would the Romans come in from the north? The Greeks already had laid out roads to parts of what is today India and it would seem sensible that the Romans would follow those same paths towards China and enter from its southwest border. Just my two cents.

It was more a compairason of the Roamn Seige capabilities and the the strenth of the wall then any real situation, a thought experiment more then anything else.

[Dienekes]

That said, it still provides a strong defensive bulwark given enough troops. As numerous civil wars have shown, Chinese military strategy was very good at getting lots of troops, keeping large armies fed, and managing equipment. For instance, in the Three Kingdoms period there were several battles where both sides had hundreds of thousands of troops, and at least one where there were over a million soldiers involved. Then there is the matter of cavalry - horse archers were in use, as well as large, heavily armored cavalry contingents. Roman cavalry stands no chance, and what it comes down to is the infantry. Given the numbers, my money is on China.

I was always under the impression that those numbers were exaggerated like Xerxes millions.

Anyway the Three Kingdom's period is something around 300 years after the period of time being discussed. In 100BC Emperor Wu was just starting to really put money into defending the border and expanding instead of just paying off the nomadic raiders as had been the custom. I don't think there were more than 10-15000 professional soldiers along the entire Wall at this time, with quite a lot more farmer-soldier as well but I don't think they really count as far as the strong cavalry goes.

While at 100BC the Romans did not have as organized siege work as they did 150 years later with Vespasian, if we're going by Marian Reforms they were likely more organized and better trained than their Chinese opponents. Depending on the quality of General, yeah I think a competent Roman general could take parts of the Wall. He's not going to be taking on the entirety of China, or they entirety of the Chinese Wall defenses at one time so I'd put this in the hands of the Romans. Whether they could successfully hold it or not is up for grabs depending on how the Emperor reacts.

In an open fight, not on defending and holding Walls. The Chinese cavalry would probably come more into play. A quick wiki search (admittedly not the best for this sort of thing) shows that Emperor Wu had the resources to send 4 different groups of 10,000 cavalry. So around 8 legions. Rome had around 50 Legions at the time of Caesar, but how many of those could be sent out on a single campaign is hard to say, or even how many were around in the time given I don't know. During the Cimbrian War, Marius fought with 40-80000 troops. Splitting the difference and going 60,000 it would seem that the Romans could field greater numbers. But again, the Chinese had better cavalry

I'd personally give this one to the Romans. But that really does depend on how successful the Roman Legion faces the Han cavalry.

[Knaight]

I was always under the impression that those numbers were exaggerated like Xerxes millions.
If you hear multiple millions being thrown around, or anything that puts more than a million on one side it is exaggeration. However, the very largest battles had over a million people involved. If you look at population estimates through the period, the total population dropped precipitously, to the tune of 60%, due to the wars.


Anyway the Three Kingdom's period is something around 300 years after the period of time being discussed. In 100BC Emperor Wu was just starting to really put money into defending the border and expanding instead of just paying off the nomadic raiders as had been the custom. I don't think there were more than 10-15000 professional soldiers along the entire Wall at this time, with quite a lot more farmer-soldier as well but I don't think they really count as far as the strong cavalry goes.
About 260 years even if you include the first yellow scarves rebellion, about 320 using typical dates. There were pretty dramatic advances between the periods, particularly in regards to agriculture - China's was way ahead of the curve on that for some time, but there were significant differences. As for farmer soldiers, those are relevant in regards to infantry, and are a large part of the numerical advantage. Conscription done quickly was the core of the matter.


While at 100BC the Romans did not have as organized siege work as they did 150 years later with Vespasian, if we're going by Marian Reforms they were likely more organized and better trained than their Chinese opponents. Depending on the quality of General, yeah I think a competent Roman general could take parts of the Wall. He's not going to be taking on the entirety of China, or they entirety of the Chinese Wall defenses at one time so I'd put this in the hands of the Romans. Whether they could successfully hold it or not is up for grabs depending on how the Emperor reacts.
Parts of the wall is basically assumed.


In an open fight, not on defending and holding Walls. The Chinese cavalry would probably come more into play. A quick wiki search (admittedly not the best for this sort of thing) shows that Emperor Wu had the resources to send 4 different groups of 10,000 cavalry. So around 8 legions. Rome had around 50 Legions at the time of Caesar, but how many of those could be sent out on a single campaign is hard to say, or even how many were around in the time given I don't know. During the Cimbrian War, Marius fought with 40-80000 troops. Splitting the difference and going 60,000 it would seem that the Romans could field greater numbers. But again, the Chinese had better cavalry
The thing was, the wall was a bunch of smaller bulwarks at the time, which means going around it and trying to flank the Romans is entirely plausible. The cavalry are going to be highly relevant. As for troop totals, remember that it is much harder to get larger numbers of troops further away. There is a decline as people die to illness, period, so by the time the Romans reached China they probably wouldn't have 60,000. Plus, even if they did, the question is how long their greater numbers would hold out. Given demonstrated conscripting ability, I suspect the answer is "not very long".


I'd personally give this one to the Romans. But that really does depend on how successful the Roman Legion faces the Han cavalry.
The cavalry are likely the determining factor. That said, I would be interested in seeing how well the Chinese infantry tactics (and weapons involved) work against the early manipole. Rome had been in a surprisingly high number of wars against nations that didn't really use formations or advanced infantry tactics much up to this point, and the few that did almost universally used the phalanx.

[Dienekes]

If you hear multiple millions being thrown around, or anything that puts more than a million on one side it is exaggeration. However, the very largest battles had over a million people involved. If you look at population estimates through the period, the total population dropped precipitously, to the tune of 60%, due to the wars.

I'm not sure, but I'll bow to superior knowledge. I admittedly don't know a terrible lot about the Three Kingdoms period of Chinese history, though I do remember hearing that historians thought the numbers were exaggerated.


The thing was, the wall was a bunch of smaller bulwarks at the time, which means going around it and trying to flank the Romans is entirely plausible. The cavalry are going to be highly relevant. As for troop totals, remember that it is much harder to get larger numbers of troops further away. There is a decline as people die to illness, period, so by the time the Romans reached China they probably wouldn't have 60,000. Plus, even if they did, the question is how long their greater numbers would hold out. Given demonstrated conscripting ability, I suspect the answer is "not very long".


The cavalry are likely the determining factor. That said, I would be interested in seeing how well the Chinese infantry tactics (and weapons involved) work against the early manipole. Rome had been in a surprisingly high number of wars against nations that didn't really use formations or advanced infantry tactics much up to this point, and the few that did almost universally used the phalanx.

Here's an important difference in what we're discussing. I'm just pretending that Rome and China magically share a border, because that's the only way I think this'll work. I agree with you, and maybe even take it a step further. I do not think any Roman army would make it to China from the North at Rome's height much less during the Marian Reforms. Their supply lines could not support them, and the land they'd be moving through couldn't be raided. Just going by who would desert alone the numbers would be staggering. Maybe it could be accomplished from the south, but even then, I wouldn't place any money on successfully holding that territory for long.

So with my assumptions, Rome has better trained troops and is likely to be able to field more of them. They're only weakness is the Chinese cavalry, however the Romans have faced strong cavalry before so I would on a whole give them the edge.

[Yora]

Even so, why would the Romans come in from the north? The Greeks already had laid out roads to parts of what is today India and it would seem sensible that the Romans would follow those same paths towards China and enter from its southwest border. Just my two cents.

There are not that many ways to get into China. I knew a guy who had traveled from Germany to China on bicycle and he said that there are pretty much only three ways to get from Pakistan to China. Go south through the jungle of Burma, go through Afghanistan and come from the North, or go over the mountains and there really aren't that many passes. Hanibal crossing the Alps would be a childrens birthday party compared to a full size invasion over the Himalaya. And when you take the North route, you would want to stay clear of the Gobi dessert and then you're already almost in Mongolia.

I also think that a major factor in the power of the roman army was the very well established suply system. Even when you just got to Germany it was getting difficult, but extending it all the way to China would probably have been impossible. You could get an army all the way there, but they would have to work entirely on their own without support and supplies from the empire. On the other hand, the chinese would be fighting on their home turf.
So yeah, if the romans could conquer something in China, they would have a very hard time holding it.

[Aedilred]

I'm not convinced that cavalry is as decisive a factor as is being suggested. Yes, Roman cavalry of the period was a joke, but they weren't unused to facing and countering it. In fact, one of the key features of the Roman armed forces was adaptability and ingenuity, and the ability to deal with pretty much anything anyone threw at it, be it elephants, chariots, cataphracts, legions of Hunnic horse-archers, or whatever. It's true that it was largely cavalry that did for the western Roman army (and to a large extent the eastern one as well) in the 4th-7th centuries, but the Roman military was a long way past its peak at that stage.

However, Rome's success was also built on the principle that they had good armies to throw after bad. They could afford to suffer defeats like Arausio and Cannae and the Teutoberger Wald because they had more soldiers to throw after them and therefore buy themselves time to learn how to win. A Roman army operating independently on the other side of the world couldn't afford to take such chances. Not to mention supply issues, and so on.

[Zain]

When I though this up, I was assuming that Rome basically appeared to the north, with the supplies needed to siege the wall. So for the this discussion, assume that supply lines are a none issue.

[Knaight]

When I though this up, I was assuming that Rome basically appeared to the north, with the supplies needed to siege the wall. So for the this discussion, assume that supply lines are a none issue.

That changes things pretty dramatically. What are you assuming for Roman reinforcements? If they can draw from the local area, well, China's big recruiting advantage just went down the drain, as Rome was pretty good at the same thing. If they can't, they still have a large and solid army.

[H Birchgrove]

They're Romans; there is nothing they could not accomplish.

Except treating measles (and smallpox and bubonic plague, of course). :smallfrown:

I wonder what chance they would have against influenza. :smallconfused:

[Zain]

Except treating measles (and smallpox and bubonic plague, of course). :smallfrown:

I wonder what chance they would have against influenza. :smallconfused:

This brings up an interesting point, where there any maladies that the Romans might have been vulnerable too?

[Knaight]

This brings up an interesting point, where there any maladies that the Romans might have been vulnerable too?

Hygiene standards were close enough that neither side would have had a particular disadvantage in vulnerability to illnesses of the other. There were maladies, yes, but there were maladies Rome could have brought to China as well, so it basically cancels unless the way they handle them are substantially different.

[Zen Monkey]

Would the Romans have a significant size and reach advantage in melee combat? How do the average height/weight/fitness numbers factor into the outcome? The odds in a boxing match, for example, can be affected significantly by someone having a few more inches height and reach.

[Spiryt]

Would the Romans have a significant size and reach advantage in melee combat? How do the average height/weight/fitness numbers factor into the outcome? The odds in a boxing match, for example, can be affected significantly by someone having a few more inches height and reach.

They can be affected by it in at least roughly well matched boxing fight, when other qualities of boxers, from skill to heart and experience are somehow even.

In theoretical war like that there's way too many deciding factors to tell for sure how often some kind of physical advantage of certain fighter would come in play.

[H Birchgrove]

Who would have the superiour military intelligence?