Who would win in a total war, The Roman Empire or ancient China during their respective relative peaks? Let's assume the Roman Empire during the reign of Trajan vs China during the Han Dynasty. Also let's assume they shared a boarder.
>>751873
Alexander era macedon. Well organized phalanx would shit on both.
>>751873
/his/ loses. Take fantasy alt history to /tg/. This isn't even a counter factual.
>>751887
Kek.
>>751888
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP HAVING FUN
>>751894
>implying that would fare any better than a normal bow vs a phalanx, even the repeater crossbow, which I think existed in the 3 kingdoms wouldn't really do shit to a pike/shield wall.
>>751894
crossbows are fucking shit m8
None would be able to conquer the other. Would probably play out like Rome va Parthia, a constant back and forth.
>>751894
>>751873
Share a border where? At the Zagros mountains? The central Asian steppe? The Himalayas?
>>751873
Who would win, a samurai or a knight?
>>751914
anywhere that gives neither side a notable geographic advantage
>>751873
/his/ loses
>Total war prior the industrialized modern era
Fucking kek.
>>751873
China had roughly ten times the population, so they win.
>>751926
ok so where? Who are the commanders in charge? One side will eventually figure out a way to use the environment against the enemy, no matter what it is.
>>751927
I think OP means to say that both sides are committing all resources and forces
>>751931
Rome at its height had up to 60 million people, so I doubt that.
>>751917
>penetrates wood
Well, good thing they had wooden shields and bolts don't just deflect off pikes..
Oh wait.
>>751917
And they take 8 hours to load and don't work half as well as a bow.
>>751931
Against an army of career soldiers?
>>751933
Neither side ever had the industrial capacity or political stability to devote their entire industry and forces to war.
>>751939
They have better speed and more penertration power than a bow.
>>751937
They do not work like bows, they are not shot high they are shot long. They wouldn't get caught in the upward facing pikes.
>piercing wood
>at almost half a kilometre away
Repeated crossbow fire would absolutely destroy a pike formation.
>>751967
>more penertration power than a bow.
proofs
>>751933
Which is fucking stupid on both Roman/Ancient Chinese contexts.
>Han dynasty
>China's peak
I want the Han meme to end.
>>751967
>upward facing pikes
But what about the 5 forward facing pikes, and the shieldwall/armor it can't penetrate.
Also
>shot long
crossbows never had the range of its longer bows from the same era. Its effective range was 100 meters at fucking best.
>>751989
You shoot upward from a bow and straight forward from a crossbow. Thats why crossbow has more piercing power
>>751986
Go be a buzzkill somewhere else. This is more of a discussion of military strategy, logistics and weaponry than politics, obviously
>>751992
Nigga keep your fucking arguments strait. I was saying that they had no range, and couldn't penetrate anyway, not that they didn't have relative penetration power of bows. Which also, wouldn't fucking penetrate a phalanx.
>>751873
>China at its peak
The Mongol technological advantage over Rome would give them too much of an edge. Their ponies would be marching through Rome after years of fighting.
>>752002
>relative peak
>Han dynasty
>pretty sure modern day China would trounce Rome and yuan china
>>752000
'Shoot long' means that they shoot forward m8
That was the point
>>751887
You do know the Romans beat the Phalanx right?
>>752014
Peak relative to what? I'm just assuming it's when they had the largest borders, since that's what OP is using for Rome. Qing dynasty might have been larger than Yuan, so there's even more of a technological gap.
>>752022
OP literally said Han dynasty vs Trajan Era Rome
>>752023
Also the incompetent cavalry just that just FUCKING SAT THERE IN THE BATTLE
>>752024
He said China and Rome at its peak, and seemed to pick Rome when it was at its largest, and the Han dynasty for no apparent reason. Why Han? What makes the Han dynasty the peak?
One more shitpost before bead. If you think the pike is a bad weapon, why was it so popular until the 1700s? It lasted into the pike and shot era, 30 years war etc. The fucking crossbow didn't. Night fags.
Who will the generals on either side be? The best Chinese generals were fucking masterminds so this would make a huge difference.
>>752031
Cause cavalry
>>752027
China at the time of the peak of the Roman empire was divided into three kingdoms i believe. They were matched when considering the Han dynasty. Comparable sizes etc
>>752050
So you're picking Rome at its peak (based solely on borders alone), but China isn't actually at its peak but at some arbitrary point to make it comparable in size.
>>752053
And military capacity. Han Era China and Trajan Era Rome are a pretty good match i think.
>>752053
Actually han china and trajan rome coincided so it would be temporally appropriate too
>>752065
Temporally, but it would only be at Rome's peak, not China's.
>>752070
I'm pretty sure China's peak is today. To be fair, China at its peak would crush Rome, obviously. Given that Rome and Han China at the time of Trajan had comparable empire sizes and logistical features, I think its a pretty good match up.
>>752084
>I'm pretty sure China's peak is today.
If we're still going by the size of their borders, Qing and Yuan dynasties were bigger. Tang if you count tributaries.
>>752088
We were never going by sizes
>>751924
G Ö T Z
Ö
T
Z
>>752090
Then there's no reason to count Trajan's Rome as its peak, other than "but they controlled the most territory then"
>>752090
That's what she said
She's a lying whore.
>>752101
>she
>>752100
when would you say the peak of the roman empire was?
>>752126
Probably some point in the Republican era. Maybe just after the conquests of Carthage and Greece.
>>752130
Well technically speaking we were talking about the peak of the empire in particular, but Ill engage you on that regard. The battle of carthage was a great roman victory but only because rome was almost trounced by hannibal. It was really close to being the end of the roman republic He made it all the way into the boot. In Trajan era Rome, not only was the military far more capable in dealing with foreign threats, they did this all while subjugating lands from as far east as Syria to Egypt to Briton. Thats pretty damn impressive.
>>752144
You're going back to the second Punic war now, but even that shows Rome's ability to wage war. Hannibal was able to meander around fighting for 16 years and Rome was still capable of putting together a force to attack the city of Carthage. If anything that would be closer to the total war scenario you have in mind, much moreso than anything under Trajan.
If you're limiting it to the empire, then the Principate or the Dominate?
>>751967
The repeating crossbow was a different animal you idiot, it had almost no draw to it. They were tipped with poison because they had no power they were large dart throwers.
>>752153
Good point, but I think the consulship of Marius was the high point of the Roman Republic. It was the beginning, i think, of a much more robust military complex.
Definitely Principate, in which Trajan ruled, but you can make a good argument for Hadrian. The Dominate was notoriously despotic and heavily riddled by Germanic invasion.
Advantages of Han china
- Richer
- More ethnically unified
- More cavalry and crossbows
- System of conscription
- Larger army
Rome's advantages
- Bigger population
- Better roads for logistical support
- More iron sources higher quality weapons and armor
- Superior training, discipline and experience
- Better infantry, diversity through auxiliary troops
I'd say that if Rome and Han were put right next to each other, with some central asian plains between them, Rome wins
They either defeat a chinese conscript army in the field or breaks it against the walls of their superior forts
>>752196
Actually, Western Han China is evenly matched with the Roman Empire in 25 BC at 57 Millions.
