Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Wikipedia discussion

This is a copy pasted version of the discussion from Wikipedia archived on a separate page to avoid confusions --Gbaor 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Original Research

I like to be honest so here it goes. This article should IMHO be deleted asap. It seems to be largely original research. The well-intended author wanted to compare the two empires, took a couple of points and tries to explain how one empire fell and the other one vanished. While I personally think that the subject by itself is quite interesting Wikipedia is not the proper place to publish one's personal theories and views. Flamarande (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Before deleting please consider to transwiki it to Wikiversity (which allows original research). So the user may not be lost for the wikiverse and can continue there: see the added template. In case it gets deleted, admins can also restore it again, nothing gets lost in the database. ----Erkan Yilmaz 23:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Though this article may not completely conform to standards, i think that this subject matter should be covered on wikipedia or as Erkan Yilmaz said, transferred to another part of the wiki universe. I would appreciate any effort to change the article so that it conforms with wiki guidelines. After all, there are many comparison articles on wikipedia; see Comparison of 2000s fighter aircraft Teeninvestor (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a comparison between the Roman civilization and the chinese civilization in general. Although the main comparison is between the Roman Empire and Han dynasty, later and earlier entities such as the Roman Republic and Jin dynasty may be included as well. The Byzantine Empire should not be included as by its end it had significantly differed from the classical roman civilization(Grecized, islamic attacks, medieval feudalism, etc...) Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the external links. Now that they show it is not original research, can we remove the templates? thank you. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove any of them as the comparisons are faulty. For example: you compare the ability of fielding armies and loudly proclaim that the Han China was more able than ancient Rome, right? Citing: "Also, due to the superior economy of China the Han army was larger despite the fact China had a smaller population; evidence of this is seen in two campaigns. For the battle of Carrhae (53 BC), the Romans fielded some 50,000 men, while in the battle of Mobei (119 BC), China could field up to 300,000 troops".

To be honest these campaigns show your own personal conclusion and convictions. You simply picked two single campaigns and then argued that they demonstrate larger trends. However the earlier Roman republic managed to field 86'000 soldiers at the Battle of Cannae and at the Great Illyrian Revolt and at Trajan's Dacian Wars the Roman Empire fielded substantially more. If a serious historian had reached such a conclusion and had provided with proper examples and hard evidence I would take it with a grain of salt. However the conclusion and the "evidence for it" comes only from you and therefore it is original research and synthesis.

Then we have the part of: "In contrast, the Roman emperor did not have such power; he was by law forced to consult the senate, and he was frequently usurped or assassinated". I'm not going to dispute that the Roman emperors were frequently assassinated, and that that the Senate still had some prestige. However I don't know of any law that forced the emperor to consult with the senate. You wrote that there was such a law and that the emperor was forced to obey it but then failed to provide proper sources for this statement. Flamarande (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this article was only created days again; I've added citations to several sources demonstrating my point. I did remove the section about the senate, as i couldn't find a source for it. But the point of the section was that the Chinese emperor was more powerful(whether for good or bad),which you wont disagree with. Also, as to troop numbers, ive provided several sources already, and i'm going to find some other sources demonstrating troop numbers. But if you want to challenge my point, check any article on wikipedia and you can see Han Empire has a lot more troops. see battle of Zama, battle of Mobei,battle of Mayi, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, and thier sources. From these numbers alone it can be seen that China was able to field an army much larger than Rome. A plethora of sources have been made available for you to consult. Thank you for your assistance. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly this is Original Research and unpublished synthesis. You studied the history to some extent and now you are presenting your own conclusions about the matter inside this article. Wikipedia is about hard facts, proper evidence, and professional and widely accepted scholarship and not about the search for a 'new truth'. The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains was waged by a weakened Western Roman Empire near its end (basicly a half of the old empire)! Read for example the Battle of Philippi. I certainly agree that the Chinese dynasties were more stable than Roman ones and that this fact had an stabilizing effect upon Ancient China. Flamarande (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that contention. I did not "present" my synthesis, though some of the language may seem a bit deceptive. I have modified the page so that it shows comparisons of troop numbers. As you said, "WIkipedia is about hard facts". Therefore I have presented a number of facts about them. You are welcome to challenge them; after all, thats what improves the article. I certainly agree with you that earlier the article might have had some OR, but now they have been removed and sourced. Also, if the battle of chalon could be said to have been smaller, what about the battle of Zama? or Carrae? they were waged at a strong point in Roman history. Also, remember, the Roman army was fighting in a fertile and settled land, while the Han army was fighting in what was basically a desert, thus making it much harder on the supplies. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to synthesis as described here WP:SYNTH. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You present some facts (and I don't dispute the facts by themselves); however you pick them selectively and use them as evidence to support your own conclusions. That's OR and Unpublished Synthesis. And to answer your two points: The battle of Carrae was waged by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He was part of the Triumvirate and the Roman Republic was waging at the same time a full-fledged campaign against the Gauls. So I could easily answer that he probably had only a third of the available forces (but that would be OR :). He wasn't a warlike emperor, or someone sent by a emperor, with the cream of the army and the support of the whole empire behind him. The battle of Zama was waged by a hardened veteran army led by one of the best military and most arrogant generals ever (Caesar, who simply delighted in attacking with inferior numbers) against mostly inexperienced recruits. He probably believed that he wouldn't need more troops (again OR :). Flamarande (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, battle of zama was not waged by caesar and there is no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. Also, even if the Roman army was committing only about a third of his forces in the battle of carrae, it would only bring it up to 150,000. I could state that the Han army was also campaigning agianst other enemies. In terms of numbers, check all the battles of the time period, and you will consistently find that the Roman army was only able to field up to 50,000-100,000 troops. For battles of similar importance, CHina could field 300,000 troops or more. Also, because the chinese army campaigned in hostile terrain(Mongolian desert) up to 500,000 porters, food carriers, etc.. would be needed, while the Roman army could live off the land. I challenge you to find a single battle in which the Roman army was able to field 300,000 troops in a desert-like environment. Also, i invite you to go through the article. there is no section where i "conclude" something, so it is not OR. that was your original complaint. If you feel my facts are inadequate, you can add your own (But you must source them, as i have). Teeninvestor (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you forgot my contention that Han army had much worse supply conditions than Romans(Mongolian desert). May I suggest to you since you are so interested in the military section, please expand it. Also, can someone expand the religion section as well as adding a culture section; I added a law and society section, but it was insufficient.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all you're right, I mixed the battle of Zama with another one battle. The Battle of Zama was between Hannibal and Scipio. I also wish to add that Scipio only had limited support of the Senate.

On the other hand one shouldn't compare different armies which face different difficulties (climate and terrain) and are fighting against different enemies and then conclude that one army was more able than the other. The two armies didn't fight each other. They didn't fight in the same terrain under the same conditions and they didn't fight against the same enemies. Their enemies had different armies, societies, and different strengths and weaknesses.

The Roman army never needed to field such a huge number of troops (300'000) against the Huns, Mongols, and Tartars in northern China and Mongolia. The Romans needed smaller armies to fight against the Parthian Empire in modern Iraq (the arch-enemy of Rome besides the ever-present danger of the Germanic tribes). It's a different enemy and a different climate. It's a different way of waging war. The Romans were masters in siege warfare, but AFAIK the northern tribes in northern China didn't concentrate in cities. Therefore the Han army was probably not used to sieges (at least as the Romans were used to). The Parthians usually lost against the Romans. The Chinese army needed more soldiers to fight against a different enemy (who was probably more numerous) in a different terrain and in a different climate. And by the way: ancient writers give only sparse information about the supporting elements of the Roman army.

The section ends with: "A direct comparison of the two armies' prowess was their treatment of the Huns. While the Han army defeated the Huns and annexed their lands, the Roman army was crushed by the Huns, despite better natural defences; this lead to the collapse of the western Roman empire." (and this sentence shows that it is your own conclusion - no source)

If you care to read the article Huns you will see that their precise identity is disputed and unclear. Some historians believe that they are the Xiongnu, but the evidence is often indirect or ambiguous.

So we have a nomadic people (who may be or may not be descendants of the Xiongnu) who united under a mighty and able warlord (Attila the Hun) attack two Roman empires (but never at the same time). The Western Roman Empire who is weakened and decadent and the more powerful Eastern Roman empire. Two empires with different armies, emperors, goals, foreign policies and whose cooperation was often deficient. Two empires already terribly weakened by prior invasions of other tribes. Two empires who often tried to bribe the "barbarians" and often sent these barbarians against each other (better the tribes bother the other Roman empire than mine). It wasn't even the old Roman army anymore; at that stage it was largely composed by foederati and mercenaries. The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains was fought between an alliance of Visigoths and Western Romans against several tribes under the command of Atilla. Western Roman troops whose pay, equipment, training, and composition of forces was simply different and probably inferior from the earlier unified Roman empire. You can't call that a direct comparison between the Roman army and the Han army. Flamarande (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the direct comparison. I should change that to indirect comparison or something. However, it is the only comparison we had. However, remember two points: The Roman army had much better defences(numerous rivers that didnt freeze in winter, while china only had great wall.), and Attila was much weaker than his khan predecessors. Xiongnu could field about 300,000 cavalry; Attila could field only about 50,000 cavalry. Maybe a better comparison is between Roman and Parthian forces, where there was a stalemate. However, you're forgetting your original contention. Nowhere did I state that the Han army was superior. I only said that this is a good comparison between the two armies(Faced exactly the same enemies, etc..). Regarding the Han army's ability for siege warfare, it would have been equal if not superior to the Romans. Siege warfare were very frequent from the time of Sun Tzu (300-400BC ish). Teeninvestor (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the objections of Flamarande because they would provide an alternate viewpoint on the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande, since you seem to have some knowledge on the Roman Empire, can you expand the section about culture, society and law, and religion? help would be appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible errors

Also, further objections. Firstly, the military section. The Roman Empire lasted, as this article says, 500 years, while the Han dynasty lasted 400 years. Surely, over the course of so many years, their military tactics would have become completely different? The Roman legionary from the 5th century AD, would have been less disciplined, less professional, and relatively lighter arms compared to a legionary who fought with Augustus Caesar. Furthermore, it wasn't because the Romans had a "penchant for falling into ambushes" that they lost the battle of Teutoburg Forest. It was mainly because Arminius was Varus's trusted aide. In the Economics section, it states that China was more liberal then the Romans, because the latter relied on slaves. A significant number of China's population were de facto slaves. Also, many slaves would be freed, and become freemen, whose children would be granted Roman citizenship. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The line about falling into ambushes doesnt come from me it comes from the source. But several battles were lost by the Romans because they did fall into ambushes. This is mainly due to their method of fighting. Romans like heavy fighting; legionnaires wore armor, carried swords, etc.... The Han army was more mobile. It had large amounts of cavalry and missile troops, so it could move a lot faster than the Roman army. Also, I dispute the part abotu china's population being slaves. There is one crucial difference between a chinese peasant and a Roman slave: The chinese peasant could move about, change his location, etc... The labor market is free. The Roman slave on the other hand, could not move; if he tried to escape from his master, he would be captured. In terms of Rome's economy , almost 30% of Rome's population were slaves; they manned all of Rome's workshops, farms, etc.. China's workshops, farms, etc... were manned by free laborers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 December 2008

The source ([1] page 3) only says

"Despite the strength of the Roman military, conquest was not accomplished without resistance. The Romans did not have a large force in the Balkans, for example, and when the Pannonians rebelled against Roman rule in ad 6, Tiberius, another stepson of Augustus, needed three years and 100,000 men to put it down. But the greatest disaster took place in Germany. In ad 9, the Roman general Publius Quintilius Varus led three legions into an ambush, and they were annihilated by a Germanic tribe called the Cherusci in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. This catastrophe, the worst Roman defeat in two centuries, forced the aging Augustus to adopt a policy of caution and restraint. "

It says nothing about Romans constantly falling into ambushes. This is synthesis. Also, see my comment about Arminius above. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Roman military training, although discipline would have declined, Roman military technology would have advanced. For example, a legionary at Augustus' time would have weaker arms than legionary in 5th century as there is advance in iron works. Personally, i doubt the Roman legions at any time would have been able to defeat the Huns because 1. they lack missile troops to coutner cavalry(Crossbow) and 2. Roman cities did not have walls in antiquity, so cavalry could capture them easily. Also, Rome's economy would have been unable to withstand the strain of pursuing huns in their own terroritory.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There was perhaps a better military technology but the two Roman empires were much poorer (besides divided) and couldn't afford it in relevant quantities. The whole army was different, just read Structural history of the Roman military.

Then you write: "Personally, 'I' doubt the Roman legions at any time would have been able to defeat the Huns because 1. 'T'hey lack(ed) missile troops to 'counter' cavalry (Crossbow) and 2. Roman cities did not have walls in antiquity, so cavalry could capture them easily. Also, Rome's economy would have been unable to withstand the strain of pursuing 'Huns' in their own 'territory'."

That shows yet again the big problem. You studied some points of the Roman empire and the Han empire. Then you made your own reasonable conclusions and wrote a paragraph based upon them. However you and me (and almost all contributors of Wikipedia) are amateurs (we truly don't know all that much - You don't seem to know all that much about the Roman empire, I will certainly admit that I know nearly nothing about the Han empire - I certainly do know that comparing different states is a dangerous enterprise). There is an enormous lot of evidence and information we know nothing about. You seem to ignore that the major cities of Late Antiquity were smaller and much more fortified than during Classical Antiquity. Therefore your reasonable conclusions are simply flawed (your information was limited and you used it to make your conclusions producing honest but flawed results).

This just shows exactly why we are supposed to read and use books (preferably a lot of them) written by professionals who read and study each other's work (for comparison) and also study ancient sources. These professional academics earn their living by writing such books, and while many of them have been revealed to be frauds the majority aren't (if someone proves that the professional produced flawed work his reputation will be in shambles). We are not supposed to use a couple of points to then write an article were we show our own conclusions. Flamarande (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: "Rome's economy would have been unable to withstand the strain of pursuing 'Huns' in their own 'territory'". Who knows? It seems to me that ancient China only had to deal with a single big enemy (the northern nomadic tribes). Therefore it probably could concentrate nearly all its resources and efforts on a single northern front against a single enemy. On the other side Ancient Rome had several different enemies and several fronts (the northern barbarians and the Parthian empire). Therefore it had to divide its resources and efforts along several fronts and against several enemies. Ancient Rome was more than able, but Ancient China had simply an easier situation. Easier situations are easier to deal with. Neither was better than the other. They simply were different societies and states in different situations. Again: this is my own OR. :) Flamarande (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments above were my personal opinion. I did not add them to the article if you didnt notice. Also, regarding my knowledge of Roman empire, i have read their history and edited several Roman-related articles. My main point in my comments above(which I DID NOT ADD to the article) was that Romans would have had a hard time fighting the Huns and cavalry in general, because their armies were primarily heavy infantry, and they lacked the CROSSBOW. The crossbow is a major difference because it was two things: 1. it made heavily armored infantry obsolete.

2. it was a MAJOR coutner against cavalry. Also, the Romans did not have a very good cavalry force to counter the Huns on their equal times, so they would have had a hard time. This is not to suggest the Romans were inferior. They were simply lacking several technologies, as well as experience in fighting nomadic Cavalry(Though i suppose parthia would count, but Huns were better thant Parthians). Also, because of heavy armor/equipment of legionnaires, their mobility is also affected. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki?

Is there any particular reason this shouldn't be transwikied to Wikiversity? It's excellent material, but better suited to Wikiversity's scope than Wikipedia's. This would of course work better if most or all of the people discussing it here would be interested in continuing the discussion there :-). I'll gladly import both the article and the talk page, but please make sure your accounts are unified first (I'm a 'crat on wv, so can help with that as well). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Will it be removed from wikipedia if it is transferred? because i prefer it stay on wikipedia if that is the case. However, if they can be on both wikis, I have no objections. Teeninvestor (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC).