The Roman Empire under Augustus in its prime or the chinese empire under Qin Shi Huang.
>>790575
Romans die swarmed by zergs
>>790575
In terms of ancient empires, Chinese win battles, Romans win wars.
>>790575
>Roman Empire under Augustus
>in its prime
China had much larger numbers.
Unless you get China in a period of turmoil, China would win. Usually, China only lost wars in those periods.
>>790586
Rome's advantage over its neighbors would be a disadvantage against China.
>>790575
who has more horse archers?
That's who would win
>>790575
>Qin Shi Huang
The Qin dynasty ended over 250 years before Augustus was even born.
>>790612
Roman armies proved capable of defeating much larger armies.
China used conscripts to create their huge armies, and while they had good Calvary, they were never as good as the people of the steppes
>>790624
I know, I just thought that I would make some kind of scenario when the empires were at their strongest point. Maybe I picked the wrong time for that too, doesn't matter desu.
>>790630
>China used conscripts to create their huge armies, and while they had good Calvary, they were never as good as the people of the steppes
That's not really true. I'm more familiar with Roman-Han comparisons, since they're contemporary, but the Han did have a professional military supplemented by regional militias. Not sure if the Qin used the same model.
>>790575
Almost certainly the Romans. At the height of the empire, they actually had more population than the Chinese, and vastly outproduced them in things like mining and fuel usage.
>>790654
The traditional Han vs. Roman Empires or Qin vs. Roman Republic makes more sense. Qin was not a very stable dynasty, it fell apart after Shi Huang died.
>>790672
Ok, so who would win between those two?
>>790662
>At the height of the empire, they actually had more population than the Chinese
Source on this?
>>790678
The Roman Republic was much more internally united than the Qin. The Qin resulted from one of seven states conquering all the others, and the subjects and former rulers of the other six kingdoms greatly resented the Qin such that they all rose in rebellion with the death of Qin Shi Huang.
While the "lol conscripts" argument from >>790630 isn't correct (the Qin won BECAUSE they replaced feudal conscript armies with a professional force, See >>783099) the Qin would buckle if they took heavy losses, as the other six kingdoms would rise in rebellion. The Republic of the Punic wars proved that they could take massive losses while still retaining their internal cohesion, so I would say that the Republic would win any extended conflict.
>>790654
Hadrian's Rome was the strongest.
Strong armies, great leadership
>>790672
Pronouncing the names of Chinese emperors is fun.
>>790681
I mean, this is just wikipedia, but after the Antonine Plague, (160 AD) you had about 61 million people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population
Meanwhile, the Han weren't quite at 60 million in any of the censuses they took.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Han_dynasty#Reconsolidation_under_Guangwu
It wasn't a big edge, but the Roman Empire in its early forms had the greater population, not China.
>>790662
>but the Han did have a professional military
Yeah but they were like, 60k in peacetime and they swelled to like 100k for war and the rest was farmers. The imperial roman army was 250k all volunteer professional soldiers under Augustus, and they could go out and conscript new legions rather fast if needed.
>>790738
>Yeah but they were like, 60k in peacetime and they swelled to like 100k for war and the rest was farmers.
We are talking about both empires at their peak, right? Both your numbers are a huge underestimation then.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu_War
>At the start of Emperor Wu's reign, the Han empire had a standing army comprising 400,000 troops, which included 80,000 to 100,000 cavalrymen, essential to the future campaigns against the Xiongnu.[121] However, by 124 BC, that number had grown to a total of 600,000 to 700,000 troops, including 200,000 to 250,000 cavalrymen.[121]
>>790749
And what about the roman army ?
>>790760
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army
>By the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial army numbered some 250,000 men, equally split between 25 legions and 250 units of auxiliaries. The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211, in 33 legions and about 400 auxiliary units. By then, auxiliaries outnumbered legionaries substantially.
These are just standing/professional troops, though, for both sides.
>>790749
No, I'm talking about the actual professional soldier. The Han used a constant 2 years service conscription to make up most of their army, plus some thousands volunteer professional troops.
Just because they have a standing army doesn't mean it's made of professionals. Their system was very similar to the cold war military levies in most of Europe.
>>790738
>the rest was farmers
Nope.jpg
The Standing army was smallish at around 100,000 give or take.
The STANDING ARMY.
Now this was Han China. It was a Centralized Empire however it contained the dinosaurs of Feudal China: the noble Feudal families and descendants of Kings defeated by Qin Shi Huangdi. It was their revolt that toppled the Qin Dynasty following the death of Qin Shi Huangdi, but Liu Bang pulled a fast one on them and reinstated the Empire. However, he cut a deal with some of the Feudal families and these retained some of their rights. So in essence Han China was both a centralized and feudal country. Imperial Governors lived in a world alongside ancient aristocratic families whose lineages date back to the Zhou.
Rights like, say, the raising of their own soldiers.
So while the Standing army was small, the professional army wasnt. Augmenting that Standing army were the household troops of very ancient families like the Cao, Sun, Yuan, and Li.
Hell, let's even throw in the private military organizations set up by Chinese weapon-owning individuals, who worked as mercenaries & policemen for hire. Their shit was totally legal so long as their activities weren't criminal, and many young Chinese men (usually failing scholars) saw this as a way to game the system as if your outfit was good enough, you're formally inducted into the army with a rank WITHOUT going through military formality/service under a feudal lord.
>>790808
Yeah but we don't have any numbers on those retinues, so I might as well claim another 200k soldiers from Rome's clients (who invariably offered their armies to Rome's service when it was needed of them and were not conuted among the roman troops) on the same basis as you.
These threads are awful
Just play a game of Civ, you autist
>>790836
Rome is pretty mediocre in Civ V compared to China desu. The 20% building bonus doesn't really kick in much until mid-late game while its UUs are early-game.
>>790833
Well we do know that during the Han-Xiongnu Wars, China pulled off around 400,000 professional soldiers. How many those were professional household troops and private cunts, we dunno.
Don't give a shit for the rest of this thread really, I just dislike the meme that Chinese pulled off peasants in the field and gave them sticks and told to march off. The Chinese conscript had a term spent under training.
>>790874
>Well we do know that during the Han-Xiongnu Wars, China pulled off around 400,000 professional soldiers.
No, we know they pulled off 400k conscripted soldiers off their levy system. Where are you getting the professional part, your ass?
>The Chinese conscript had a term spent under training.
Yeah but that doesn't make them professionals at all. Not even close. Especially since they're not volunteers, so morale is what it is.
>>790937
>Yeah but that doesn't make them professionals at all. Not even close. Especially since they're not volunteers, so morale is what it is.
Wasn't saying they were. Was saying It's what triggered me: the peasant meme.
