Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Gatts]

wow makes me feel like watching the history channel for a special on this subject lol

This post has been edited by Gatts: Sep 12 2005, 01:09 AM

[Wokoo]

No it's you who doens't stay on the topic, my first reply was about the topic, then ppl keep to say shaolin monk would beat anybody etc. I read bull$hit basically wrong about Roma, and i feel to correct it, if after your ignorance makes you even come out with stupid comments i don't care.

You base your knowlogy over a game, i beat you don't know anything, in that game Gladiators were even part of the army, how much ignorance.

And i never said Romans never hired non-roman citizen, i said they did it only on the late empire. Never read some book from the historian of that time? When they used to comparate the army of Roma to the army of Cartagine?

Feeling i'm arguingin with teenages, pretty sick.

[Col]

I'm saying you probably got your info over a game; Rome's cavalry being the best and the elite of their time? Do you even know who the Sarmatians are? The Sythians? The Parthians? Mounted combat was exactly what destroyed the legions at the Battle of Carrhae.

Oh did i ever mention Gladiator? What info did that movie teach us? Enlighten us plz. Gladiator used in the army? This part wasn't even on the extended version lol. I don't know what kind of books you've been reading and how high your reading and comprehension skills are, history books for retarded peoples History for 4th Grade?

A single Roman Legion was consisted of around 4k regular legionairres and couple thousand auxilaries. They've been hiring auxiliaries to supplement the legions and to combat the natives of various regions as well as for garrison duties. The Augustus model of a single legion was 4k regular leginnaries supplements by regional auxiliaries to help out in combat styles the regulars were not very well adapted to; ala mounted and archery combat for example. Hell, when Scripio was in Africa, he had a good portion of his forces composed of Spanish auxiliars. Auxiliaries were recruited from conquered regions, serving somewhat longer terms than the average legionnaire and were rewarded with Roman citizenship at the end of their term. In the late empire before the split, Rome could barely afford to properly train and maintain her professional army, hence that's why they began to hire mercenary units who were basically "barbarians" themselves commanded by Roman officers. By that time, the Legions were but a shadow of their former self. Rome was totally wrecked based on several factors:
1. Not very well-maintained and trained Legions always spread thin
2. Uses of unreliable barbarian mercenaries who sometimes even turned on their "commanders"
3. The Barbarian HORDE!!!!!

I suggest you really grow up and shut up before you embarrass yourself even further.

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 12 2005, 10:46 AM

[UnregisteredUser]

After reading through several pages of this thread, I can't help but remark at the ignorance and erroneous assumptions being made here. What is all this talk about how the super-uber Romans would supposedly pummel the rag-tag hordes of Chinese peasants? The Han vs. Rome thread was closed for no good reason but since EvilAsianDude has brought it up again in this thread, all I'll say for now is that the hope of Roman superiority in a military comparison against the Han is nothing more than a dream, and all the aforementioned descriptions of supposed Roman superiorities are nothing more than illogical, erroneous, and baseless assumptions.

And BTW how the hell did the comparison of "Shaolin monks vs. Spartans, Mongols" even come up? As some people have pointed out, the comparison is ridiculous and pointless. Shaolin monks were Buddhist monks, not soldiers, though that does not say anything about their individual fighting skills. Nevertheless, no state in their right mind would be so idiotic as to rely on a small group of monks with supposed super-fighting abilities who weren't accustomed to military tactics to defend their territory, especially since, for example, the empires of China could field armies far more effective and powerful than most people here seem to think.

And Col. Though the Sarmatians and the Gauls generally had better skilled cavalry than the Romans, Gallic cavalry was far from being the "best cavalrymen at that time". The Gauls weren't known for their cavalry. As for the Sarmatians, all steppe nomads were equally skilled as horsemen and mounted archers, but the Sarmatian cavalries were not qualitatively the best of their time. The nomads of the eastern steppe had better quality cavalry due to better iron and steel weapons obtained from China and the "Hunnish" bow which was bigger and more powerful than the old Scythian bow that was stored in the gorytos the nomads of the south Russian steppe used. At this time, cavalry was generally better suited for harassing and skirmishing tactics than shock tactics, and, by the 4th century CE, the eastern nomads like the Xianbei and the Xiongnu vassals had stirrups, giving them an advantage over the western nomads in terms of close-quarter fighting, stability, and mounted archery. Stirrups didn't reach the West until the Byzantines encountered the Avars in the 6th century CE yet stirrups were relatively rare in continental Europe until much later in history.

This post has been edited by UnregisteredUser: Sep 13 2005, 12:23 AM

[Chinese DesertFo...]

I am simply amazed at how incredibly thick EvilAsianDude is. His rhetoric is a complete joke, as each and every one of his claims were destroyed in the Rome vs Han China thread.

Great post UnregisteredUser.

[Gatts]

how the hell did the shaolin get brought up in a samurai vs roman soldier lol

[hkneo2001]

how the hell did the shaolin get brought up in a samurai vs roman soldier lol

beats me.... imo.. there isn't any point even comparin samurai n romans... as it is impossible cos they are in different eras.....

btw unregister bro.... good post
but i hav one comment to make about gaul cavalry as from what learned about Treveri - Julius Caesar, who in his commentaries, mentioned that the Treveri were war-like and known for their horsemanship. He said they had the best calvary in all of Gaul. Caesar had to face with 2 uprisings of the Treveri n in fact lose one of them and losing an entire legion as well....


btw is this the onli ancient history tread around here.. cos i would love to discuss ancient wif anyone interested.....
(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2
neo

This post has been edited by hkneo2001: Sep 13 2005, 04:52 AM

[EvilAsianDude]

OMFG I've had it with you. Go up and re-read what i've said. They would own anyone if the conditions that they're fighting under are close to par. Go get a dictionary to see what it means. I won't repeat myself. Did i ever say the monks are gods? Stop twisting my words. they're humans, and of course they have limitations.

If the conditions favor them then that certainlly means that a shaolin monk in a real situation wont own all other types of warriors. You finally admitted that they will lose to archers and rangers. Now your stating that if Shaolin monks were given all the advantages that the shaolin monks would win? What kind of advantages? Like if its a very muddy floor in which the armored knight sinks and the shaolin monk with his sandles and no armor wont? You call that fair?

And to destroy your HK movie statement; Shaolin was reowned even before the invention of TV and modernization in the East. After all, it made itself into world history books. And what makes you think backflips and $hit are all the monks could do? You're so incredibly biased i swear with the mentality that you're right and everything else = wrong.

Since when did I ever claim anything about the shaolin monks not being popular? Im aware that the Shaolin monastary was burn down before the invention of the television. And im also aware that most of the original practioners were killed. Most of what you see in todays temple
Wasnt martial arts banned in china for a certain period of time which is why you see all though acrobats rather than actual fighters even today? Naturally speaking since the shaolin were famous they'd be one of the first targets to ban.

So you're reverting your mongol statement right now and retorting with Spartans? I've never denied the greatness of the Spartans did I? Or are you trying to twist my words like you always do?

Simple comparison:

Spartans trained since childhood

Mongols trained since childhood

Some Shaolin monks train since childhood; but all train for the rest of their lives like the two mentioned above.

And thats my point. You act as if only shaolin monks train long and hard which is fake. All kinds of warriors trained hard. Some were better then others either by tactics, equipment or intellect.

Now what makes you think a Spartan can beat a monk? Oh, just based on the Illiad and the Battle of Thermopylae where 7300 Greeks held off hordes of Persians with complete terrain and equipment advantage. I'm sure child-abuse would make great warriors. that type of training was to test the children their bravery, endurance, and resourcefullness, no where in terms of fighting skills and abilities. Afterall, the Spartans are reowned for their discipline and bravery

Yes and this discipline and bravery can also be used in a fight.

The monks' credibility at least got thousands of years of history plus some documentaries, videos, and articles--stuff that your mind probably closed itself to.

And, what is this credibility based on? What wars did they fight? Who else did they own? Did they perform any legendary deeds?

And don't twist my words around. I didn't say a Shaolin Monk would own a mongol. If they fight in melee, the monk would most likely win. Ranged combat; the monk is as good as a target. Your rationale of equipment = skills is completely beyond me. Each type of warriors have their own specialties, but since the original topic here was Samurai vs Legionnaire, i consider that as melee unless the original thread starter intended it as a match between mounted Samurai and Roman Auxillary Cavalry.

If you really want to play the stupid equipment game:

Fully Armored Hopelites in Phalanx > Monks

Mounted Mongol Warriors > Monks

Legionnaries with Pillums > Monks and hoplites

random person with a machinegun > all

Monks > all in hand-to-hand combat and certain melee weaponry.

Happy now?

Well then I guess that means the monks would lose most of the time against real warriors. And what do you mean certain melee weaponary? You cant just give a mongol a weapon he's never used and tell him to fight a monk who has experience with the same weapon. And you cant have it one way or another.
You cant be a god of the fist and a god of dozens of different types of weapons. Since shaolin monks divided their training to doing several different tasks(sometimes sword, sometimes spear, other times axes or punching or wrestling). That means in a hand to hand situation a shaolin monk still lose to someone who spends his entire time doing nothing but punching and wrestling. Some of the best martial artists in china are not monks, they were masters who did nothing but hand to hand combat.

so in conclusion shaolin monks wont own everyone. They will to a wide variety of different types of warriors, and they were made into a romantic warrior caste in movies or tales despite not being able to really accomplish much.

[freefallz]

Soldiers who are trained in Kungfu have an advantage of utilizing equipments and adapting to the surroundings more effectively. As for Samurai and Roman soldier. It really depends what Roman soldier we are talking about here.

[EvilAsianDude]

lol, Col buddy dont worry about those dumasses; its been like 11 pages now and those retards still cant get it through their thick heads, worse still are all these uber samurai noobs influenced by anime claiming how great they are or those SPQR freaks roma victor maniacs....

im already sick of it lol, let them be ignorant
I am simply amazed at how incredibly thick EvilAsianDude is. His rhetoric is a complete joke, as each and every one of his claims were destroyed in the Rome vs Han China thread.

Dont you find it funny that whenever a overly zealous Chinese nationalist cant prove anything and that he realizes he's wrong he just resorts to name calling and trolling? Look at their posts, they will call anyone retards, thick headed, noobs, joke, biased etc mainly because "THEY DONT SUPPORT THE CHINESE". Yup trolls like these make me sick. Oh wait you two happen to be those trolls, my bad lol
You chinese nationalists are so funny. You resort to name calling without evidence or anything topic related(that translates into trolling). You two are probally from the spoiled little emperor generation who cant take no for an answer and whine and cry like the babies that you are if your wrong.

After reading through several pages of this thread, I can't help but remark at the ignorance and erroneous assumptions being made here. What is all this talk about how the super-uber Romans would supposedly pummel the rag-tag hordes of Chinese peasants? The Han vs. Rome thread was closed for no good reason but since EvilAsianDude has brought it up again in this thread, all I'll say for now is that the hope of Roman superiority in a military comparison against the Han is nothing more than a dream, and all the aforementioned descriptions of supposed Roman superiorities are nothing more than illogical, erroneous, and baseless assumptions.

I too have the amazing talent to write how illogical, erroneous and baseless something is if I disagree with it. In the real world however no one cares about these statements, mainly because its nothing but trash talk without anything to actually prove how illogical it is. If I want to prove something ill have to present something much more than simply name calling the other side. If we look at what youve written its nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air.

[Col]

Fine then Evil, we've come to an agreement! (Finally) Different warrior owns in different situations. Lol how many pages did it take? I believe everything that needs to be said is concluded by Unreg =)

And Col. Though the Sarmatians and the Gauls generally had better skilled cavalry than the Romans, Gallic cavalry was far from being the "best cavalrymen at that time". The Gauls weren't known for their cavalry. As for the Sarmatians, all steppe nomads were equally skilled as horsemen and mounted archers, but the Sarmatian cavalries were not qualitatively the best of their time. The nomads of the eastern steppe had better quality cavalry due to better iron and steel weapons obtained from China and the "Hunnish" bow which was bigger and more powerful than the old Scythian bow that was stored in the gorytos the nomads of the south Russian steppe used. At this time, cavalry was generally better suited for harassing and skirmishing tactics than shock tactics, and, by the 4th century CE, the eastern nomads like the Xianbei and the Xiongnu vassals had stirrups, giving them an advantage over the western nomads in terms of close-quarter fighting, stability, and mounted archery. Stirrups didn't reach the West until the Byzantines encountered the Avars in the 6th century CE yet stirrups were relatively rare in continental Europe until much later in history.

Thanks for the info and correction Unreg, I stand corrected =)

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 13 2005, 11:46 AM

[UnregisteredUser]

I too have the amazing talent to write how illogical, erroneous and baseless something is if I disagree with it. In the real world however no one cares about these statements, mainly because its nothing but trash talk without anything to actually prove how illogical it is.

It's blatantly obvious you don't care simply because you lack the ability to comprehend how illogical, erroneous and baseless your assumptions are. In the face of facts, your assumptions are less than trash at best. It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

If I want to prove something ill have to present something much more than simply name calling the other side. If we look at what youve written its nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air.

Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments. Talking about worth, just about every one of your assumptions about Roman superiorities in the Han vs. Romans thread is sourceless and baseless BS. It's your assumptions that are "nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air". As for namecalling, it's you who resorts to calling the other side "stupid Chinese nationalists" when you could reciprocate no further.

This post has been edited by UnregisteredUser: Sep 13 2005, 04:34 PM

[Mr. Tree]

meant for evildude

you so fu-ken anti- China its not funny. i dont need to go through every single post you make and show where your gay bias is or how dumb your blind @$$ is, thats for pre schoolers, your probably an exception

im not wasting time with you anymore.

if i ever do see you in real life and really hope i do.
ill kick yo korean nationistic fat head up yo @$$

yes im resorting to name calling since thats what you do so damn well i feel i might give it a try. oh and ill be a blind @$$ too if i wanted to in regards to your post. your such a great insperation for being a @$$hole

This post has been edited by Mr. Tree: Sep 13 2005, 09:39 PM

[EvilAsianDude]

It's blatantly obvious you don't care simply because you lack the ability to comprehend how illogical, erroneous and baseless your assumptions are. In the face of facts, your assumptions are less than trash at best. It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

You see, this is why i dont even take your words all that seriously. All you do is tell me how poor my arguments are without providing any worthwhile evidence or anything that deals with the subject. Theres a word for this kind of behavior, its called trolling. You should look up on that. You havent stated whats illogical, erroneous or baseless in my "assumptions. Its even funnier since you bring up the word "fact" despite your poor ability to even bring up a single fact. Actually you havent done jack $hit, all youve done so far is name calling(which even a 5 year old child can do, not that your any different). My assumptions arnt correct, facts are correct and if you look at the facts Romans have the edge. Your poor ability to comprehend much less look into hypcorisy is incredible. If you think im assuming crap then doesnt that mean the other side who supports the chinese is also assuming stuff? The logic of chinese nationalists is just incredible, freakin little emperor generation.

And please go on ahead and do whatever you plan to do. Dont waste my time with your garbage posts.

Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments.

Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Talking about worth, just about every one of your assumptions about Roman superiorities in the Han vs. Romans thread is sourceless and baseless BS. It's your assumptions that are "nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air". As for namecalling, it's you who resorts to calling the other side "stupid Chinese nationalists" when you could reciprocate no further.

Oh really, if it was so baseless then please counter them. Heck why didnt the chinese posters in that topic counter them? All theyve stated so far was that im anti chinese or that the chinese can mine and farm more. You also act as if China has a glorious military history, funny how history has shown over and over again that the only time the Chinese win is when they either fight amongst themselves or they fight some group much much smaller than them. Quit wasting my time and go start an argument if you want. Ill crush it will little effort. Unfortunatly I can sense that your very much like the typical chinese nationalists. Youll probally end up name calling and ignoring the entire debate, just like what Mr. Tree is doing/trolling.

meant for evildude

you so fu-ken anti- China its not funny. i dont need to go through every single post you make and show where your gay bias is or how dumb your blind @$$ is, thats for pre schoolers, your probably an exception

Tell me how im anti chinese? All I mentioned was that the Romans were better than the han in warfare. Then you get all pissy-whiny-cry babyish when I mentioned that the Chinese arnt the god like race you view them to be? Youve got to be incredibly sensitive and dumb if you think im anti chinese just because I concluded that the Romans would win.
Didnt you cry like a little baby when someone posted up the battle of salsu in another topic? A battle in which about 303,000 chinese lost their lives to a much much much tinier army who lost almost no troops? With only 2700 chinese troops and the emperor himself returning alive? LOL.

im not wasting time with you anymore.

Good, that will be benefical for both of us(mainly me of course since im tired of read dog$hit).

if i ever do see you in real life and really hope i do.
ill kick yo korean nationistic fat head up yo @$$

LOL, ooh im shaking in meh whee little boots. Its just incredibly stupid how you act all gangsta tough and threaten someone ONLINE just because they concluded the romans would beat the han.
how old are you 10? I suggest you go to anger management classes 101. Maybe then youll learn to behave and not threaten people online over a little debate. Most of what you nationalists type up is just hilarious, annoying or both. But it seems that im making some of you fools angry lol. If thats the case then you made my day. Ill be smiling for the next few days. Thanks for giving me a laugh (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

yes im resorting to name calling since thats what you do so damn well i feel i might give it a try. oh and ill be a blind @$$ too if i wanted to in regards to your post. your such a great insperation for being a @$$hole

Great, keep up the good work. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

[Mr. Tree]

It's blatantly obvious you don't care simply because you lack the ability to comprehend how illogical, erroneous and baseless your assumptions are. In the face of facts, your assumptions are less than trash at best. It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

You see, this is why i dont even take your words all that seriously. All you do is tell me how poor my arguments are without providing any worthwhile evidence or anything that deals with the subject. Theres a word for this kind of behavior, its called trolling. You should look up on that. You havent stated whats illogical, erroneous or baseless in my "assumptions. Its even funnier since you bring up the word "fact" despite your poor ability to even bring up a single fact. Actually you havent done jack $hit, all youve done so far is name calling(which even a 5 year old child can do, not that your any different). My assumptions arnt correct, facts are correct and if you look at the facts Romans have the edge. Your poor ability to comprehend much less look into hypcorisy is incredible. If you think im assuming crap then doesnt that mean the other side who supports the chinese is also assuming stuff? The logic of chinese nationalists is just incredible, freakin little emperor generation.

And please go on ahead and do whatever you plan to do. Dont waste my time with your garbage posts.

Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments.

Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Talking about worth, just about every one of your assumptions about Roman superiorities in the Han vs. Romans thread is sourceless and baseless BS. It's your assumptions that are "nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air". As for namecalling, it's you who resorts to calling the other side "stupid Chinese nationalists" when you could reciprocate no further.

Oh really, if it was so baseless then please counter them. Heck why didnt the chinese posters in that topic counter them? All theyve stated so far was that im anti chinese or that the chinese can mine and farm more. You also act as if China has a glorious military history, funny how history has shown over and over again that the only time the Chinese win is when they either fight amongst themselves or they fight some group much much smaller than them. Quit wasting my time and go start an argument if you want. Ill crush it will little effort. Unfortunatly I can sense that your very much like the typical chinese nationalists. Youll probally end up name calling and ignoring the entire debate, just like what Mr. Tree is doing/trolling.

meant for evildude

you so fu-ken anti- China its not funny. i dont need to go through every single post you make and show where your gay bias is or how dumb your blind @$$ is, thats for pre schoolers, your probably an exception

Tell me how im anti chinese? All I mentioned was that the Romans were better than the han in warfare. Then you get all pissy-whiny-cry babyish when I mentioned that the Chinese arnt the god like race you view them to be? Youve got to be incredibly sensitive and dumb if you think im anti chinese just because I concluded that the Romans would win.
Didnt you cry like a little baby when someone posted up the battle of salsu in another topic? A battle in which about 303,000 chinese lost their lives to a much much much tinier army who lost almost no troops? With only 2700 chinese troops and the emperor himself returning alive? LOL.

im not wasting time with you anymore.

Good, that will be benefical for both of us(mainly me of course since im tired of read dog$hit).

if i ever do see you in real life and really hope i do.
ill kick yo korean nationistic fat head up yo @$$

LOL, ooh im shaking in meh whee little boots. Its just incredibly stupid how you act all gangsta tough and threaten someone ONLINE just because they concluded the romans would beat the han.
how old are you 10? I suggest you go to anger management classes 101. Maybe then youll learn to behave and not threaten people online over a little debate. Most of what you nationalists type up is just hilarious, annoying or both. But it seems that im making some of you fools angry lol. If thats the case then you made my day. Ill be smiling for the next few days. Thanks for giving me a laugh (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

yes im resorting to name calling since thats what you do so damn well i feel i might give it a try. oh and ill be a blind @$$ too if i wanted to in regards to your post. your such a great insperation for being a @$$hole

Great, keep up the good work. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

QUOTE
Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments.


Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.

Tell me how im anti chinese? All I mentioned was that the Romans were better than the han in warfare. Then you get all pissy-whiny-cry babyish when I mentioned that the Chinese arnt the god like race you view them to be? Youve got to be incredibly sensitive and dumb if you think im anti chinese just because I concluded that the Romans would win.
Didnt you cry like a little baby when someone posted up the battle of salsu in another topic? A battle in which about 303,000 chinese lost their lives to a much much much tinier army who lost almost no troops? With only 2700 chinese troops and the emperor himself returning alive? LOL.

rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....


Good, that will be benefical for both of us(mainly me of course since im tired of read dog$hit).

no thats because you cant read

LOL, ooh im shaking in meh whee little boots. Its just incredibly stupid how you act all gangsta tough and threaten someone ONLINE just because they concluded the romans would beat the han.
how old are you 10? I suggest you go to anger management classes 101. Maybe then youll learn to behave and not threaten people online over a little debate. Most of what you nationalists type up is just hilarious, annoying or both. But it seems that im making some of you fools angry lol. If thats the case then you made my day. Ill be smiling for the next few days. Thanks for giving me a laugh

hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking

[Col]

To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P

[UnregisteredUser]

You see, this is why i dont even take your words all that seriously. All you do is tell me how poor my arguments are without providing any worthwhile evidence or anything that deals with the subject. Theres a word for this kind of behavior, its called trolling. You should look up on that. You havent stated whats illogical, erroneous or baseless in my "assumptions. Its even funnier since you bring up the word "fact" despite your poor ability to even bring up a single fact.

Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:

It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

Actually you havent done jack $hit, all youve done so far is name calling(which even a 5 year old child can do, not that your any different). My assumptions arnt correct, facts are correct and if you look at the facts Romans have the edge. Your poor ability to comprehend much less look into hypcorisy is incredible. If you think im assuming crap then doesnt that mean the other side who supports the chinese is also assuming stuff?

Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

The logic of chinese nationalists is just incredible, freakin little emperor generation.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 Your hypocricy is incredible. You complain about how I started calling you names when all I've done was attack your arguments and now you resort to calling me a "Chinese nationalist". Perhaps it's time you need to turn on your brain and realize your own folly.

And please go on ahead and do whatever you plan to do. Dont waste my time with your garbage posts.

Right. So shut your trap and stop spilling out your baseless and sourceless assumptions about Roman superiorities and vent out your anger on your beloved "Chinese nationalists" elsewhere rather than contaminate a history thread with your garbage.

This post has been edited by UnregisteredUser: Sep 18 2005, 04:17 PM

[UnregisteredUser]

Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:

The Han dont have steel. The Han also exsisted in a time in which the cross bow was new. The Chinese indeed had the potential to make better metal weapons and armor. HOWEVER china relied on heavy numbers therefore the average soildier wasnt as well equipped as its smaller yet more quality based roman counter part. The Roman legionairre wore lorricated metal plates or chain mail as well as a plated helmet. He carried a stabbing short sword and a large pavise/tower shield. He was also armed with a throwing spear which I believe is called a glaive. They also relied on a archer squad and indeed have a cavalry squad as well.

You also overestimate the power of crossbows. Crossbows are indeed powerful and revolutionary. However in the long run bows were still superior. English Long bow men or the Mongols still used bows rather than crossbows. Crossbows were great for beginners, for experienced warriors however(professionals) the bow was a better tool once you had the training. Romans warrior elites were indeed these professionals. The same is true for china which probally had better bows. Nevertheless the bow wouldnt do much since the romans had cavalry as well as a wall of shields. Now if the chinese utilized cavalry archers in mass then they could get close enough to rain arrows(and penetrate shields) while running away if they get to close. Too bad the chinese wernt the mongols.

In a direct sword to sword melee combate there is little the han can do against a testudo formation by the legionairre.

http://www.novaroma.org/gallery/rd2003/testudo.jpg

picture this moving formation except several times larger + swords and youll get an idea of its effectiveness. These heavy shields were resistant to arrows and melee weapons. And if your wondering, han melee weapons would slice through those shields. The only way thats possible is if they have a really really large melee weapon that only the strongest of warriors can carry. The Han did have strong warriors but the average footsoilder was not one of them. So in conclusion the Han would lose in a sword vs sword battle.

The testudo is a formidable formation. A leader can command a testudo to march in unison. You tell them to go left and all warriors inside the testudo will move left at the same time. They can turn circles, move back, or advance. It was that mobile and efficent. Also the people in the front of the testudo were given more force and pushing powers because of the people behind them in their formations pushing them forwards.

Also each legionairre was armed with a throwing spear(glaive) that had a heavy side to it. This heavy side helped to pierce enemy shields and armors and once stuck to them made it heavy. These spears would rain hell against chinese archers who have little protection. Or they can be used against the cavalry or footsoilders.

Also the chinse employed crossbows and archers very similarilly to the way romans used them. They would send their archers and fire arrows for a while. Then draw them back and send in the foot soilders. The bow is powerful however within a certain range they lose lethality. The only way to make the bow effective in this manner is to utilize cavalry archers, which china never TRULY mastered or used due to its strategy of using large amounts of footsoilders rather than a small band of elite cavalry archers(mongols). Needless to say , archers might become useful at close range however that means theyll have to hit their own troops. And in all likelihood if that happens then the han would be dieing at a much quicker rate then the roman legionaiire. Mainly because the roman had a towershield over his head + loricated metal and leather armor.

Since chinse footsoilders wont do much aganist the testudo they can send in their cavalry. However they will face another problem. The cavalry will do little against the testudo as well. The testudo is a wall of shields and spikes/swords. The shield was INTENTIONALLY made of wood because enemy weapons would stick on wood once struck. Therefore the spear of the cavalry charge or the slash from the sword or axe will stick to the romans shield. Once this happens they have no weapons which means that the han is screwed. Cavalry will do a better job because the horse at charging speed will delieve much more force to the spear or saber. However they only have one shot and a great chance of having their weapons stuck. Furthermore the Romans had cavalry of their own as well. That meant that not only would the romans have to deal with the wall of shields and spikes of rome but also its cavalry. If strategically placed and complimented with the testudo they can be a quick hit and run group to rip away at chinese numbers. If the chinese try to directly assualt the cavalry the testudo comes in and absorbs and kills them. Once theirs an opening at the chinese side the cavalry comes and direct attacks the chinese commanders main battle group. Theres really little that the han can do.

The Han do not have anything compareable to guns during this time period with the probable exception of siege weapons(which are only useful during sieges rather than battle field combat).

Tactics wise the romans indeed had better macro and micro tactic skills. They were better at commanding troops, lining up formations as well as utilizing its troops. Most of chinas tactics were to simply OVERWHELM their opponents with troop after troop. Name me one chinese victory in a serious battle in which the chinese didnt overwhelm their opponents?

Finally Chinese tactics for the most part are a joke. THere are some great generals but other than that most of them were a joke. A 5 year old could tell the chinese army to "go march towards bad guys and attack them with your insane numbers" and they will still do well(unless facing a strategic and quality based army).

And intresting fact is that the roman legionairre you see was rarely defeated. THe reason why rome lost battles and collapsed was not in part due to the failure of its military strategies. Actually most noble romans didnt want to join the army. So instead of using actual legionairres rome eventually hired mercinaries/barbarian troops who didnt fight like traditonal romans. These mercinaries were loyal to money not rome. Therefore rome fell easilly once their mercinaries felt that they had enough and ran from the battle.

China cant do much with swords and cavalry. They can only rely on archery(which the romans possess as well).

However within a certain range their arrows will be useless. Their archers wernt very mobile either. And if they continued to fire they would be cavalry charged.

They cant do much.

In conclusion equal number of romans vs han = roman victory. The Han faught similarilly to the persians(large numbers). And we all know of how the greeks and macedonians beating the persians. The Romans testudo formation is an evolution of the greek phalanx(like the testudo except with smaller shields and spears).

It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."

Oh really, if it was so baseless then please counter them. Heck why didnt the chinese posters in that topic counter them?

They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.

You also act as if China has a glorious military history,

The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.

funny how history has shown over and over again that the only time the Chinese win is when they either fight amongst themselves or they fight some group much much smaller than them.

Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations. It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.

Quit wasting my time and go start an argument if you want. Ill crush it will little effort.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.

Unfortunatly I can sense that your very much like the typical chinese nationalists. Youll probally end up name calling and ignoring the entire debate, just like what Mr. Tree is doing/trolling.

Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself.

[Mr. Tree]

hold on this was a saburai vs roman soldier thread.... how did it turn into Han vs Rome...... (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

this whole thread doesnt make sense to begin with. saumurai vs roman soldier..... a better comparison is a gladiator vs samurai or a praetorian vs samurai.... $hit it shouldnt even matter, the time-line is waaaay apart its pathetic.

i still stand that a roman army can crush a japanese samurai army. this can be countered that a gunpowder ashigaru army can crush a roman army (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

a roman legionare vs samurai.... i must say the legionare would win. sheild is a huge advantage in melee combat if we are considering the use of swords. and if we consider spears, the romans do have throwing pilums.

if it were a Han vs Rome the romans would be crushed, details can be found in the old han vs rome thread.

[Col]

Just to start this off, I tend to remain neutral in all things discussed on these boards.
Evil, you still haven't provided proof or a reasonable/credible argument (sometimes simply ridiculous and blind-biased) for the following things:

1. Chinese tactics = jokes. Oh i see, based on one battle.

2. Wooden and iron shield of the Romans immune from melee and ranged weapons?

3. Testudo immune from melee attacks? Testudo with swords and spears? Are you trying to block arrows or form a pesudo phalanx? Testudo mobile and efficient? Tell that to the Romans who got slaughtered by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae! Testudo formation is inflexible, tiring, and absolutely sucks at mobile warfare. The enemy can run and throw $hit at you from every single direction, and i doubt the entire formation could turn at a par rate.

Also the people in the front of the testudo were given more force and pushing powers because of the people behind them in their formations pushing them forwards.

Have you confused yourself with a phalanx? I would liek to see you move fast in a testudo formation.

4. Steel a new invention at the time of the Han? Idk what the hell are you on, but steel's been around in China since 2nd century B.C.E

5. Legionnaire pillums attacking defenseless Chinese archers? Think everyone's an olympic thrower? They're called Pillums or Pilli, not the glaive. Each only carry like 2; they're designed to render enemy shields useless by sticking to it, thus slowing down the enemy and disarming them a bit.

6. Bow > Crossbow? The infamous English crossbowmen used the longbow because a, it's powerful, and b, it's very easy to produce. Producing a crossbow at that time in Europe is a bit hard you know. the Chinese crossbows are very renowned, but again, stuff you probably do not know. Crossbow bolts are more aerodynamic than arrows and have slightly better armor-piercing ability. You know why Chinese soldiers wear only light armor most of the time? By the time the crossbow was introduced and steel weapons were used, armor was simply useless. A bolt would simply penetrate right through a Roman shield (wood and iron)

7. Cavalry. Do i need to go wokoo on you? The Chinese were very good at cavalry warfare, compared to the Romans who disdained archery and mounted soldiers and only kept a small amount of auxiliary forces to do these jobs. I doubt couple hundred cavalry in a single legion would do much against the "Chinese hordes" if your "horde bias" applies here. roman cavalry carried spears as well as a slightly longer sword--the same armament that applies to most general cavalry units.

8. Roman legionnaires rarely defeated? Take a look at their campaign in Germania or the fight against Spatacus. The Romans couldn't take on another major power save for Carthage, and Egypt didn't count b/c Cleopetra's Egypt was a joke. Hannibal almost whooped their asses back in the Punic War days, but we're not gonna go that early. The Parthians dealt the Romans a good one, and Rome never actually managed to invade the Parthian's heart.

9.

Tactics wise the romans indeed had better macro and micro tactic skills. They were better at commanding troops, lining up formations as well as utilizing its troops. Most of chinas tactics were to simply OVERWHELM their opponents with troop after troop. Name me one chinese victory in a serious battle in which the chinese didnt overwhelm their opponents?

Don't make others work to quell your own ignorance! Can you actually NAME battles where the horde tactics was used? Pure speculation, but I'm not denying it hadn't been used before since the overwhelming rush tactic is primitive stuff used by every military in world history. If you had actually studied any Asian history to any degree at all, Chinese armies did have numerous formations and tactics as well as innovation. I doubt you're heard of some commander using some sort of dried vine or something to create armor, rendering his soldiers almost invulnerable to arrows (don't know about crossbow) but at the same time extremely vulnerable to fire. The Romans were good at small-units tactics, I can give you that, for their Centurions were usually the ones who decided the outcome of the battle by managing individuals centuries to work up magic amongst the pandemonium of the battlefield. you forgot one thing; most of the time, the legions fought against unorganized tribes of "Barbarians." The Egyptians were a joke at the time; the Greeks were declining and outnumbered, and the Seleucids were getting hampered by the Parthians, Eastern Nomads, internal revolts, and Rome at the same time.

10. (I'm tired of numbering, all counter arguments go here)

However within a certain range their arrows will be useless. Their archers wernt very mobile either. And if they continued to fire they would be cavalry charged.

They cant do much.

Again, pure opinion and no facts to back it up. Holes were already seen in your arguments back when you and I were still arguing.

The Han dont have steel

You, Are, Wrong. Simple and straight. Look up when steel was introduced, and when the Han reigned at its apex you ignorant arrogant @$$. (It's not a personal attack, it's my impression of you. You are ignorant in the eyes of almost every single posters on this forum, and yeah, i'm sure all of us here are Chinese and Nationalists. You're arrogant since you think you're almighty correct and others = wrong. You're an @$$ because you insult others for your own damn faults)

he Han also exsisted in a time in which the cross bow was new

The Crossbow was around at least since ROTK era, you're wrong.

They also relied on a archer squad and indeed have a cavalry squad as well.

The Romans RELIED on their INFANTRY and everything else was SUPPORT. Jesus, have you ever studied Roman history? Or hell, ANY real history at all?

However in the long run bows were still superior. English Long bow men or the Mongols still used bows rather than crossbows.

The Mongols used composite bows that were compact enought o be used on horseback, and arrows were tipped with steel arrowheads. Hence the immense penetrating power that killed everything. English longbow men used longbows because they were much easier to produce en-masse.

Also the chinse employed crossbows and archers very similarilly to the way romans used them. They would send their archers and fire arrows for a while. Then draw them back and send in the foot soilders. The bow is powerful however within a certain range they lose lethality. The only way to make the bow effective in this manner is to utilize cavalry archers, which china never TRULY mastered or used due to its strategy of using large amounts of footsoilders rather than a small band of elite cavalry archers(mongols). Needless to say , archers might become useful at close range however that means theyll have to hit their own troops. And in all likelihood if that happens then the han would be dieing at a much quicker rate then the roman legionaiire. Mainly because the roman had a towershield over his head + loricated metal and leather armor.

And all of a sudden you're well versed in Chinese history? Where the hell did you pull that Chinese employed archery the same way as the Romans? Out of your rear? The Chinese were very skilled at fighting on open plains and on chariots, and when the mounted nomads from the North came, they integrated the archery on horseback into their military system. Archery had been a tradition in China and all of Asia for eons beyond your negligible scope. The Chinese cavalary was of course no Mongol; they both employed different tactics. Chinese cavalry was designed to fight against the mounted warriors from the North; while as no one in the West was equipped or trained to defeat them. The Nomads eventually won due to imperial corruption and decline as well as field commanders being restrained and ordered to play along with the tribute system.

These heavy shields were resistant to arrows and melee weapons. And if your wondering, han melee weapons would slice through those shields. The only way thats possible is if they have a really really large melee weapon that only the strongest of warriors can carry. The Han did have strong warriors but the average footsoilder was not one of them. So in conclusion the Han would lose in a sword vs sword battle.

Steel weapons would penetrate every armor they could be made at that era, hence why most soldiers preferred light armor to maximize their agility with the concept that speed = armor. The Chinese also did employ elite heavy infantry armed with metal shields and swords. Wooden tower shields would not stand very long against steel weapons, end of story. Roman soldiers were better trained than the average Chinese soldier is correct.

I'll add more later; others feel free to supplement. And yes, I'm sure every single one of us here are Chinese nationalists and Roman haters, and anyone who disagrees with the "expert historian" here are ignorant. I highly doubt he has even taken any college-level or any real history courses or joined in any real life debates.

I apologize for adding fire to the newly sparked Han vs. Rome thing introduced onto this thread. But dammit, how the hell did i miss that thread? I probably joined too late or something. It just irks me when some close-minded fool start insulting others and claim to know history.

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 18 2005, 09:31 PM