Who else thinks the Romans would have kicked the Han Chinese Empire's a#*?

Question

Who else thinks the Romans could have beaten the Han Chinese if their armies ever went head to head? In fact, at what point in history do you think that there existed a nation on earth again with an army strong enough to rival Rome's at its height (I might guess the first time was 17th century Britain)?

PS for the sake of comparison, the city of Rome had at least one million inhabitants by the 2nd century AD, which is like nothing the world would ever see again for literally over a millennium and a half. The empire had between 50 and 80 million people and was more intensively associated with urban culture and more "integrated" than its Chinese counterpart, even in Western Europe.

Answer 1

On a flat plain as existed at Arbela or Gaugemela in 331BC, I believe the Macedonian army under Alexander the great could have defeated the Roman Legions of Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar. It is true that Roman legions under Aemilius Paulus did beat the Macedonian phalanx at Pydna in 168 BC, but this was not fought on a "level playing field" but rather along hillside slopes which broke up the phalanx formation. Also at Pydna, the Macedonian cavalry did not fight for King Perseus as they would have fought with Alexander at their head. The Swiss would employ the disciplined masses of pikemen to superior effect throughout the 1300s,1400s, and early 1500s. Only the advent of field artillery broke up the Swiss phalanxes which were of the same mold as those of Alexander's Macedonian army.
Incidentally, not just any army can use massed pike phalanxes. The Scots failed to use this effectively at Flodden in 1513. Much practice is required. Amateurs cannot use this mode of fighting well.
As for the Chinese armies under the Han, I believe their archers could have played havoc with Roman legions, but the large Roman shields would have given them an advantage.
I doubt that any army could stand up to Roman legions if it came down to close quarters fighting with adversaries at arms length distance. Roman legionnaires fought "like a buzz saw" up close and personal. Face to face was the ideal distance for using a 20 inch sword, the gladius iberius, and no soldiers have ever used this more effectively in my opinion as a military history writer.

Answer 2

The Chinese Han had stirrups on it's cavalry, it also had crossbows... the tips of the crossbows bolt were 3 sided... it worked more like a center punch when striking its target.

True the Romans were probably very effective at short range. But knowing that China had run the Huns out of China... and the Huns ended up moving west... eventually sacking Rome. I'm my money is on China.

There was one occasion where the Chinese and Romans may have fought in 36 BC, at the moment the evidence is inconclusive:

The Chinese have an account by General Ban Gu of about "a hundred men" under the command of Zhizhi who fought in a so-called "fish-scale formation" to defend Zhizhi's wooden-palisade fortress against Han forces, in the Battle of Zhizhi in 36 BCE. The historian Homer Dubs claimed that this might have been the Roman testudo formation and that these men, who were captured by the Chinese, were able to found the village of Liqian (Li-chien) in Yongchang County.
______
It would have been interesting to see none the least, if Rome and Han China would of had to battle.

Answer 3

No, I think China's over all power and long history out does Rome's glory ten fold! I happen to be a history junky ,and I'm interested in both histories.

Answer 4

at its height there is no army that couldve stood up to the romans