The Art of War

[TheSmilingBandit]

The era of the Roman Republic. Around 44 BC to the time the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Ok war junkies, this is a what-if scenario. What are your thoughts? Who would win it and why?

Circa 44 BC would be the Triumvirate period of Rome and the Han Dynasty of China.

 

The basics:

Manpower

• Rome (SPQR) - Not yet the more famous Imperial army, the armies of Rome during this time were still based on the citizen levies but were already becoming a professional army as the Legionaries had to serve for 16 years and were mostly volunteers. Their training was for at least 6 months and included a lot of close-order drill as the might of the Roman Legions during this time was their adaptability and capability to work well. The basic legionnaire would be Italian (this was after the Social War) and approximately 80% were trained as infantry, 15% as navy (Roman infantry can function as marines), and merely 5% as cavalry. Considering that this was between the 1st and 2nd triumvirates, there were roughly about 40-50 legions (roughly 5,300 men each assuming full strength or 265,000 legionaries) and about an equal number of auxiliaries (mercenaries, natives of various provinces, etc. etc., mostly used as scouts, light infantry, or cavalry). So the pool of soldiers available for the Roman Republic would be 265,000 legionaries and perhaps 200,000 auxiliary infantry and perhaps 65,000 auxiliary cavalry.
  
• China (Western Han) - all able-bodied men served at least 1 year in the army as conscripts with 1 year before that for training, only a small professional army was maintained. The Western Han ruled a vast area and their armies were divided roughly into 60% infantry (mostly garrison troops), 10% navy, and 30% cavalry (most of their professional soldiers were cavalry). While there is no hard number to use for the Imperial Chinese Armies at this time, during the battle of Mayi, the Han Emperor sent about 300,000 soldiers while maintaining his garrisons and simultaneously expanding southwards. So we can assume that their manpower would roughly be in the 2 million range of trained infantry and cavalry.
  
• Summary - On the basis of manpower, China would have the edge.

 

Training

• Rome (SPQR) - The training for legionaries is 6 months, and was intensive, but as the new soldier was assigned to his legion, his cohort, and his century, his more experienced companions would teach him their tricks for survival, and the level of esprit de corp was very high.
  
• China (Western Han) - The Chinese soldiers were trained for 1 year, but the level of training depends on the type of soldier that was being turned out. Garritroops (perhaps 75% of the infantry) were trained mainly in the use of their spears and crossbows, relying on fortifications to protect themselves. Standard Infantry was not really considered of great value, and their training was mostly in volleying their crossbows together, soldiers were cogs in the machine and were transferable from 1 unit to another without much thought, their foremost thought would probably be to survive their 1 year in service. Cavalry on the other hand served for a minimum of 6 years and were considered elite units, their training and esprit de corps would be comparable to those of the Roman legions.
  
• Summary - Rome has the edge on infantry while China had the edge on cavalry.

 

Equipment

• Rome (SPQR) - At this time the basic equipment of the legionary would be their 2 javelins, their short sword, dagger, chain mail shirt, leather greaves (arm and leg), and their shield. The auxila infantry would normally have no armor and be armed with either bows or slings and perhaps a short sword or a dagger. The auxila cavalry would carry spears, long swords, and chain mail shirts with rounded shields.
  
• China (Western Han) - At this time the basic equipment of the Chinese infantry would be their their spear, their short sword, dagger, laminated plate armor (mostly leather maybe with some metal reinforcements towards the front) and shields or crossbows and dagger without armor. Han cavalry were very well equipped spear, sword, a type of mace, crossbow, dagger, metal scale mail (probably iron), and shield.
  
• Summary - Rome's legions would have the edge for the infantry while China's cavalry would massacre the auxila cavalry.
  

 

In essence, Roman legions would turtle up and dominate the center of the battlefield while the Chinese infantry would move aside and k*ll/wound the Roman infantry auxiliaries, Chinese cavalry would route the Roman cavalry auxiliaries, then they could surround the legions and take pot-shots using their crossbows, out of range of the pila of the legions. Eventually the legions would either surrender or die (from wounds or from starvation).

 

This is just my opinion of course and we have not yet gone into the leaders.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Yes, I chose this era because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps, you can also give an opinion of the Romans vs. The Chinese circa 218 B.C., or the time of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal of Carthage.[/size]

The Marian Legions of Julius Caesar's time period were far more professional than the old Republican Legions used during the time of Scipio Africanus, so I'm afraid that if we went back in time it would be worse for the Romans.

 

A great and comprehensive analysis on both armies TSB but I have a few questions. Who's better in throwing the javelin, the velites or the cohorts? When you say auxilia, do you mean archer auxilia? They're supposed to be at the back of the infantry to provide fire support, right? [/size]

Auxilia is any "native" force used by the Romans as a force multiplier, in effect equal in size to the Roman contingents and could be cavalry (remember cavalry was not as effective at this time due to the lack of stirrups), light infantry, archers, or slingers.

 

It seems to me this Chinese tactic that you're referring to is akin to Hannibal's double envelopment tactic in his three major victories against the Romans. But I agree with you that the Chinese would beat the Romans simply because the Chinese can fight at a distance.

It is similar to Hannibal's tactic, but is more akin to the Parthian tactics adapted for use by infantry.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Did the Chinese use cross bows in 218 BC?

 

Yes, the auxilia provided fire support for the cohorts. The cohorts being the assault element and the auxilia being the fire element.

 

Yeah, I read that the Parthians are expert horsemen and marksmen and their main fighting force was their cavalry.

Sun Tzu's Art of War has references to crossbows in chapter 5 and that book was written circa 500BC.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Thanks TSB. In what era were the best Roman legions in?

Actually the Roman Marian-type Legions of Julius Caesar's time is pretty good, against any contemporary opponent within their region, they could probably win any war, though they may lose a few battles.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Except, of course, against the Han Dynasty Chinese. I'm just curious if the legions of Caesar could handle Attila the Hun and his army.

Not necessarily, The Mauryan Empire of India would have probably given the Han Dynasty and the Roman empire a run for their money as well, They were known for their ability to field 600,000 infantry supported by "several thousands" of war elephants and up to 50,000 cavalry.

 

Thankfully for the Romans, neither the Mauryans nor the Han were in their region. To be honest, I feel that a war between Rome, India, and China would have resulted in a deadlock. Besides, considering the distances involved none of these armies had the logistical ability to support a major war at extended distances.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Elephants were a major reason why Hannibal was able to annihilate the Roman Legions in those three major battles. But hey, India and China had a common border. Didn't they have skirmishes during the Mauryan and Han eras?

The common border would be the mountains where Nepal and Tibet are currently located, considering the height of those mountains and the extent of that mountain range, fighting a war would be a losing proposition to the attacker who would probably lose 30%-50% of his attacking forces.

 

Still the problem of logistics...besides elephants were a problem to their users too.

True, however the Asiatic elephants used by the Indians were nowhere close to as rambunctious as the African elephants used by the Carthaginians.

 

As for the logistics that would be a nightmare for any of them, although the Romans probably had the best logistical system among the 3.

Edited December 6, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[Stella of Hanaya]

I know a person who has mastered this art of war.

[TheSmilingBandit]

I know a person who has mastered this art of war.

Who?

 

Genghis Khan and the Mongosl vs. Saladin and the Moors. What do you think guys? Who will win and why?

The Mongols probably, their armies were definitely more versatile and far better trained. Although why would Saladin command the Moors? He was the Emir of Egypt and his most famous warriors were the Mamelukes, the Moors were the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula and the northwestern parts of Africa (i.e. Berbers)

[grandkaiser13]

Japanese Samurais or English (err... European) Knights?

[TheSmilingBandit]

Japanese Samurais or English (err... European) Knights?

Depends, generic samurai vs knights?

What time period?

[dfgvan]

how about the israelite army when Moses is watching...

it has been told that during a battle when Moses' arms are raised the Israelite's won't be beaten

[maxiev]

Has anybody watched the documentary "The Art of War" which was featured on the History Channel? The documentary revolves around Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist. His teachings and genius lives on today on modern day battlefields. Even students at military schools in the US such as Westpoint study his teachings 2000 years after his time.

 

The program showed how the Vietnamese used Sun Tzu's tactics to defeat the US military. It explained how US Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee disregarded some of Sun Tzu's advise which resulted in the Union Army winning the American Civil War.

 

Here's the video. If you have the time watch it. Highly recommended.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4

[Bugatti Veyron]

Has anybody watched the documentary "The Art of War" which was featured on the History Channel? The documentary revolves around Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist. His teachings and genius lives on today on modern day battlefields. Even students at military schools in the US such as Westpoint study his teachings 2000 years after his time.

 

The program showed how the Vietnamese used Sun Tzu's tactics to defeat the US military. It explained how US Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee disregarded some of Sun Tzu's advise which resulted in the Union Army winning the American Civil War.

 

Here's the video. If you have the time watch it. Highly recommended.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=erZ2YidTZp4

 

 

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

[sonnyt111]

Has anybody watched the documentary "The Art of War" which was featured on the History Channel? The documentary revolves around Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist. His teachings and genius lives on today on modern day battlefields. Even students at military schools in the US such as Westpoint study his teachings 2000 years after his time.

 

The program showed how the Vietnamese used Sun Tzu's tactics to defeat the US military. It explained how US Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee disregarded some of Sun Tzu's advise which resulted in the Union Army winning the American Civil War.

 

Here's the video. If you have the time watch it. Highly recommended.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=erZ2YidTZp4

 

According to the video, Sun Tzu's military tactics can also be used in politics, business, and sports. In fact it can be used in any activity of man where the goal is to win. Of course, in war, all norms of morality are thrown out. One can employ the most devious, underhanded, immoral acts in order to win. Such tactics are not acceptable when used in sports, business and politics but that still doesn't stop some combatants in these areas of competition from employing these tactics. For me the end doesn't justify the means. Except in a real war of course.

Edited January 1, 2013 by sonnyt111

[TheSmilingBandit]

how about the israelite army when Moses is watching...

it has been told that during a battle when Moses' arms are raised the Israelite's won't be beaten

Well what with the "divine intervention" and what-not it would be hard to know what actually happened.

 

Has anybody watched the documentary "The Art of War" which was featured on the History Channel? The documentary revolves around Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist. His teachings and genius lives on today on modern day battlefields. Even students at military schools in the US such as Westpoint study his teachings 2000 years after his time.

 

The program showed how the Vietnamese used Sun Tzu's tactics to defeat the US military. It explained how US Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee disregarded some of Sun Tzu's advise which resulted in the Union Army winning the American Civil War.

 

Here's the video. If you have the time watch it. Highly recommended.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4

Very nice link, though of course these gentlemen have obviously forgotten a maxim of war, which is to say, "in war, everything is simple, but even the simple may not be possible." With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the decades past it is easy to point a finger and say, "this is where [insert name here] made a mistake at the battle of [insert battlefield name here]. However, during the time in question, at the exact moment, perhaps the fog of war was enough to confuse people?