Application Form: Fill & Download for Free

It’s obviously going to be a draw. The truth is never exciting to hear or pleasing is it? And I know it’s so cliched but it is also the truth, and I can say nothing but the truth.Warning: This answer is 7,700 words long, so no pressure to read it all.Author’s comments:Before I start I must first say that this is my second such answer on Rome and the Han Dynasty. First time around, i admit I was quite biased but I shan’t make the same mistake again. This time however, i’ve thoroughly and unbiasedly covered the two superpowers so I hope no one is convinced that I’m wasting your time. Please enjoy.Firstly, who are the contenders of interest here?In the West existed the Roman Empire (27 BC- 476 AD), father of modern Western civilization and the sole hegemon of the Mediterranean Sea. Renowned for her marble cities, the empire was blessed with extensive architectural, philosophical and technological feats. 400,000 km of roads allowed the 150,000 strong army of Rome to enforce the “Pax Romana” whilst ruling over a population of 70 million souls. From the wintery cold of Britannia to the scorching sands of Aegyptus, 1/4 of the world’s population lived and died under the rule of the Caesars.Here is the Roman Empire at her historical heights in 117 AD:In the East existed the "heavenly empire" of Han (206 BC- 220 AD), father of modern Chinese and by extension East Asian civilization. Considered to be the first "golden age" of China, the Han Empire’s adoption and invention respectively of Confucianism and the system of meritocratic Imperial Examinations arguably ensured the greatest feat of social engineering for 2,000 years. Famed also for the invention of paper and the repeating crossbow, a superior economy accounting for roughly 25% of the world's wealth ensured the dominance of Han from the eternal sands of the Tarim Basin to the unyielding tropics of Nam-Viet.The Han Dynasty at her heights during both Western (orange) and Eastern Han (pink) Dynasties:Although the images shown above are the real life historical heights of each empire, we can’t use it completely. The OP clearly stated that they wanted Han and Rome to share a border at Xinjiang implying that Rome has expanded up to there, and has successfully conquered the territories of the Parthian and Kushan Empires, shown below in green and grey respectively:There are some fundamental issues with the OP’s requirements however, the OP wanted:A shared borderThe empires to fight at their respective peaksIt is impossible to satisfy both requirements simultaneously. The Han peaked in its first 200 years during the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC- 9 AD), whilst Rome peaked in from 96–180 AD under the Antonine Dynasty (96–192 AD) and the rule of the “Five Good Emperors”. Meanwhile, if the two did share the borders as described by the OP, this would fundamentally alter Rome and Han’s historic advantages.The OP needs to understand that the shared border at Xinjiang would not be even. Thus I am going to purposefully edit this in two ways:In my new scenario, the Han conquers Kushan, Rome takes Parthia. Now the borders are at the Kushan-Parthia border (line between green and grey on map above)I am going to ignore any new additions (numerically) that this would give both sides. I will attempt to use Han and Rome’s historic peaks in all areas instead.Here’s how this will work, I will compare Rome and Han in as many factors as I can, before nominating a winner. As I stated before, the war will ultimately end in a draw. Thus it is your job as my reader to comment below after reading my answer, with who in your opinion would win in this legendary war for the ages.In addition, if I have something wrong, please point me out on it and I will likely edit my answer. I expect to be editing hundreds of times over.Below is the full list of topics I will be covering and comparing:Population and the militaryEconomy and fundingCultural attitudes to war and military culturePolitical capabilitiesLogistical EngineeringThe InfantryNaval ForcesArchery WarfareThe CavalryWhoever wins a category shall receive 1 point. There are 9 points up for grabs. 1 point for each category. But if it’s too close to call, I will award both sides 1 point. So both sides have the potential to both get 9 points.Population and the militaryRome:Under the Emperor Trajan, there were 30 Roman legions. Given 5,000 legionaries per legion, the total number of legionaries expands to 150,000.The number of auxiliaries was increased to 380 units leading to another 150,000 infantry and 70,000 cavalry.Altogether the total size of the Roman Army is 370,000 soldiers.Now let’s look at population to see the potential manpower Rome could muster up in an emergency.At her heights Rome had 70,000,000 people. However, there are restrictions on who can be called to fight for Rome. Slaves (often excluded until late Roman Empire for fear of leading rebellions) and women are excluded. If you’re fighting in the legions, you must be between 160–180 cm. Otherwise, every able bodied man is called up.Rome, the largest city in the world at the time contained 1,000,000 people:Now, 50% of all romans were women and 15% were slaves.So now there are only 24.5 million people available for emergency manpower. But it’s not over yet.I presume that Rome’s (and Han’s) demographics would resemble a developing country’s demographics regarding age:Knowing this, another 15% of Rome’s population would be unable to be called up in emergencies.This leaves a total of 14 million Romans that can be called up to fight in an emergency, which can be used to aid the professional army of 370,000 people making a total of 14,370,000 in potential manpower.Han:Han at her peak had a small population of 60,000,000 people. Though smaller compared to Rome, the empire barely had any slaves. In fact, unlike the Roman Empire, slaves in the Han were often free people who had been punished often temporarily. Slavery was finally outlawed in 9 AD and even 200 years later when it came back, slaves only made up 1% of the population.Thus I will not penalise the Han for slaves, also because they were not afraid to use all the manpower they could get for the Emperor did not fear a potential slave rebellion unlike in Rome.However I will penalise them like I did Rome: 50% women + 15% too old or young to fight. The Han as a result have 21 million potential emergency manpower.Chang’an had the largest city population in the world after Rome of 400,000 people:As for the Han Army, there are no reliable or concrete numbers. However, the Han were hugely guilty of using conscription to raise an army in its early days as long as the men were above 23 (in peace times).Considering the small training time (1 year) and serving time (1 year) of Han soldiers, the Army should be huge theoretically. If we go back and examine the population pyramid that would give us a standing Han army of roughly 362,500 trainees and 362,500 servicemen, totalling 725,000 soldiers (seems believable enough, the professional (non-conscripted) army of the Tang Dynasty 700 years later numbered 500,000 with a population of 80 million).So the available manpower for the Han totals 725,000 + 21,000,000 = 21,725,000 people.My consensus: The first point will go to the Han. If we’re talking purely about numbers, then the Han has the first point here.Score: Han (1) VS Rome (0)Economy and fundingRome:According to Angus Maddison, the Roman Economy beat the Han and accounted for 30% of the world’s wealth.The Roman Economy was vast, and her provinces were the richest and most prosperous in the world, as you can see Italy was twice as rich as the poorest provinces (which were as rich as the richest Han provinces):Thus the Roman Economy provided higher living standards for her citizens than did Han China. At the same time, it could also have the tax money required to fund a superior military.However, it was extremely unstable. Although Rome vastly overshadowed the world in public works such as statues, Aqueducts and the Colosseum, the funding of immense projects required huge amounts of finance. Inflation thus was heavy as the Caesars issued vast amounts of coin to fund these projects, the price of goods was expensive in general including swords and military weapons, needless to say, this damaged living standards.Like some contemporary countries today, Rome often went into wars with little material gain for the sole purpose of propaganda and inspiration, and this bankrupted the economy, although its effect was minimal at Rome’s heights.At least they left a vast amount of gorgeous structures behind like the Colosseum:No Central Bank existed to regulate the money supply either. This was not good, as capital supply often exceeded demand, leading to the making of loans based on only the riskiest of terms. In addition, money supply would fluctuate consistently as a result of a common belief due to the teachings of Seneca the Younger (4 BC- 65 AD) that anyone in business should have access to credit, including the corrupt Senators who participated (of which there were many) in and robbed the economy.Even during the the heights of the Empire, the prime currency: the “denarii” was debased (lowered the value of) several times over the rule of the “Five Good Emperors” of the Antonine Dynasty (96–192 AD) and then also during Septimius’ time in the Severan Dynasty (193–235 AD).Han:The richest provinces of the Han Empire were poorer than or equal to the poorest provinces of the Roman Empire.But that was the final extent of the economic advantage of the Roman Empire.Although usually counter-productive economically, Han Nationalization (turning private businesses into government businesses) of Iron and Salt industries to protect the citizens from corporate corruption, was directly opposite of what occurred under Rome’s Senators who were left unchecked to acts of corruption. Nationalization ensured that the peasants could work for the government and farm at the same time, increasing Agricultural tax revenue.At the same time taxes were levied heavily on the rich whilst simultaneously giving economic aid to the poor, exempting them from taxes in times of poor harvests, whilst limiting taxes for small businesses (which accounted the most for the Han tax revenue base). This was a bad thing however as it also acted to bankrupt the government.The greatest economic Han advantage was the creation and overseeing of the Silk Road which formed the first system of globalization, allowing goods to flow from West to East and vice-versa:The following source describes such an effect on Roman-Chinese trade:From: 3PerspMaps.htmlAlthough the Roman Empire had parity with the Han Empire in population and land area, economically the latter was significantly more advanced. This was reflected in trade between the Empires, which was conducted via the Silk road through central Asia, and, from the 160s, through sea-voyages by Roman merchants.This trade was characterized by the flow of Chinese goods westwards, and Roman raw materials eastwards. A consequence of this was a growing scarcity of precious metals in the Roman Empire.This lead to the repeated debasement of Roman currency in the century following 170, and the effective cessation of trade with China. Despite this, the Roman Empire far outlasted the other Empires in this map, which all fell in the 220s.Unlike in Rome also, the Han had a stable monetary system since they did not issue an excess amount of coin to fund public projects (because Han had none pretty much). Agriculturally, the Han during her heights produced 16 billion kilograms of grain annually due to the government’s pro-people peasant policy, meanwhile in Rome, intensive farming had not yet emerged. The invention by the Han of the “Multi-Tube Seed Drill” also precipitated this advantage.Chinese city life on the Silk Road, at this point in time China had not yet become the isolationist country that Western Historians have often mistaken her to be, it was in fact quite cosmopolitan:In addition,here is the Roman and Han metal output in Metric Tons:Source: Comparison between Roman and Han EmpiresMy consensus: The second point shall definitely go the Han Dynasty which absolutely was prepared more for a war at her heights than Rome was regarding industrial production and several other economic factors (like nationalization and people support). A robust economy will always be required to win a war.Score: Han (2) VS Rome (0)Cultural attitudes to war and military cultureRome:Roman attitude to militarism was not to be underestimate.As I had already stated before, the Romans mostly did not go to war for economic gain but for propaganda purposes. What you need to understand is that though Roman society appears to be an ordinary civilized empire, it was more than that. It was a civilization built on deeds of heroic imperialistic and militaristic tendencies. Even the origins of the Romans can be traced in their legends to Aeneas of Troy who fled the city and led a group of survivors west to Italy.The 4 critical Roman values showed off their attitude towards war:Pietas- Steadfast loyalty and devotion to country, ancestors and the ruler and of course to the godsVirtus- Roman militaristic masculinity exemplified through heroic daring deedsGravitas- The ability to radiate a sense of dignity and to be inspirationalAuctoritas- The ability to inspire an unyielding amount of authorityAll 4 values were embedded in Roman Art and Architecture to remind the legions of what they were fighting for and against. These 4 values were ideals to which every Roman soldier and man aspired to, to be a true roman worthy of the gods, to be the sons of Mars the Roman god of war.Here is the Arch of Trajan (commissioned 114 AD) at Beneventum along the great “Via Appia” (the Appian Way) for example (displaying the military facade):This Arch has two sides, one facing the country side and one facing the city.When the legions arrived home victorious they would march towards the city and be presented with the side that displayed civic life to remind them of the rewards that awaited them for their bravery.Upon marching to war however, they would be marching towards the countryside where they would be greeted with the military side of the arch which was filled to the brim with sculptures of military conquests and death.If you look at the picture of the arch i have above at the top-left corner, you’ll see the following image:It is the image of the “Capitoline Triad” which depicts Jupiter the chief of the gods handing over a thunderbolt to Juno (who in this image represents Rome) on the right whilst a satisfied Minerva on the left approves of the action. This is Pietas honouring the gods,it gives the Romans a purpose and ideal to which they fight for.The set of friezes (a special type of roman sculptures) is supposed to be inspiring the legionaries of Rome on their way to war. It is saying that the war is justified because the gods are on the side of the Romans, the thunderbolt- Jupiter’s greatest display of power is being personally handed over by Jupiter to Rome.Minerva, the goddess of wisdom approves as shown by her smile, this thus implies to the battle hungry men that war is not only justified but it is a wise choice. Juno (Rome) is covered in the clothing worn by the ideal female virgin to suggest her modesty and convey the importance of this great honour of being chosen by the gods for such a monumental task that is the subjugation of the enemy.A similar display of Auctoritas was embedded on the “Attic” (the top part), it was made to express the might of the emperor, the ruler under which Roman civilization thrived thus showing the superiority of Rome over the uncivilized barbarians of the north, implying that they needed to be conquered:IMPERATORI CAESARI DIVI NERVAE FILIO NERVAE TRAIANO OPTIMO AVGUSTO GERMANICO DACICO PONTIFICI MAXIMO TRIBUNICIAPOTESTATE XVIII IMPERATORI VII CON SULI VI PATRI PATRIAE FORTISSIMO PRINCIPI SENATUS POPULVS QUE ROMANUSThe translation is as follows:To the emperor, son of the Divine Nerva, Nerva Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, Chief Priest, Father of the Country, with Tribunician Power for the Eighteenth Year, Imperator for the Seventh Time, Consul for the Sixth Time, the Senate and the People of Rome dedicated to this.-Note the added Pietas in respecting his ancestors by naming himself after them. Nerva was Trajan’s father, and Augustus was the 1st Emperor of Rome.And finally if you look down to the lower corners of the Arch image I provided above, you’ll see the following set of friezes:It is the ultimate message of Roman dominance, and the ultimate motivation for the warring legions marching to victory.There are 2 figures of interest here. The first is the Emperor Trajan standing on the right (he’s the largest figure there to show off his auctoritas). But that’s not what I wanted to only point out…You see that kneeling figure on the left? It is a Parthian (Iranian) soldier… or so I initially thought, and then it suddenly hit me that the figure wasn’t a soldier… it was one of the Mesopotamian River gods…Then note in the bottom right hand corner, there is another Parthian god who is begging for even more mercy than his counterpart on the left.The god of the enemy - an immortal- was depicted as surrendering very reluctantly (note the body language) to the Emperor Trajan of Rome - a mere mortal. It is the ultimate display of Roman Imperialism and power. It is showing that resistance is futile, for Rome not only has the support of the Roman gods, but has the power to bring foreign gods to heel… that’s saying a lot.Han:In contrast the Han Dynasty though certainly an imperialist empire, did not inherently possess a militaristic culture on the same level and scale as the Romans.Under the guide of Confucianism which emphasised social harmony and peacefulness, the Han did not expand for the same reasons as the Roman Empire.Unlike the wars of the Roman Empire, the number one motive for Han military campaigns was due to the threat of domination by an expansive and aggressive nomadic “near peer” northern neighbour known as the “Xiongnu” who lived in modern Mongolia.Occasionally, the Han did go to war but it was usually for different reasons to Rome:The main cultural focus of the Han through the 400 years of their existence was actually to pursue a “One China Policy” in order to forge and give voice to a single Chinese identity built on one culture, one history and one language all “under Heaven”.You see, the reason was that Han China was actually sick of war. The longest Civil War in Human History had just ended a couple years before the start of the Han Dynasty (it was 254 years long, the period known as the “Warring States”) in China. During it, poverty and death were the order of the day. The entire existence of Han was possibly prolonged by their promise to build a peaceful stable world. Thus peace rather than war was embedded in Han culture.However, that is not to say that Han culture was war free. Having lived so close to the Warring States Period, the beauty of the ‘Art of War” by Sun Tzu was still being studied and adopted in everyday life.The Art of War was not just a book, it was a way of living life, in the same way as one chooses to live by a set of rules in a religion, and combined with the 3,000 year old philosophy of “Zhouyi” originating from the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BC) which emphasised “Wu” or 武 (Martial Spirit).On one hand the Art of War emphasised indirect militarism and “winning without fighting”:“If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous a hundred battles without jeopardy.”“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”On the other hand was Zhouyi and the recognition of Wu which emphasised how a masculine man should behave which persisted with a more direct aggressive way to act.You’ve presumably heard of Yin and Yang:Well Zhouyi is emphasizing Yang, the masculine spirit. Don’t mistakenly think that it emphasized a Viking way of behaving by pillaging and killing. No, Zhouyi insisted on living by a set of gentleman’s rules which upheld the 5 core values of:RighteousnessCourageResponsibilityDisciplineLoyaltyAlthough Yin-Yang is supposed to be a balance. By the time of Han, Wu was much more dominant than the feminine energy of Wen (文 ) which emphasised scholarly behaviour and all the stereotypical “weakness” of Chinese men that exists in the Western world today, consistently promoted by Hollywood.In those dark days, Han men had to prove themselves in combat just like Roman men, albeit not to the same intensity. This was the legacy of the prior Qin Dynasty where the Emperor had you executed for being late, yet rewarded you immensely (like how a radical muslim suicide bomber is promised 72 virgins in Heaven) for your battlefield successes.From: Yuan-kang Wang, Harmony and war: Confucian culture and Chinese power politics. Columbia University Press, 2011:14. Quote from John K. Fairbank, “Varieties of the Chinese Military Experience,” in Chinese Ways in Warfare, ed. Frank A. Kierman Jr. and John K. Fairbank (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), 7–9.“Warfare was disesteemed in Confucianism... The resort to warfare (wu) was an admission of bankruptcy in the pursuit of wen [civility or culture]. Consequently, it should be a last resort... Herein lies the pacifist bias of the Chinese tradition... Expansion through wen... was natural and proper; whereas expansion by wu, brute force and conquest, was never to be condoned.”My consensus: A Roman victory, Imperialism is written and embedded all over militaristic Roman “might is right” culture, compared to the “peaceful” Han Dynasty’s culture.Score: Han (2) VS Rome (1)Political capabilitiesRome:When the Roman Republic was founded, the Romans swore they would never again see a king ruling over Rome if they could help it. They were right in that no king would ever rule over them.But something happened that they did not foresee. 500 years later, Rome was once again being ruled by one man, one who silently overthrew Roman Republicanism until all the power that was left remained in his hand.Thus “Democracy” in Rome came to an end, cleverly overthrown by the First Emperor Augustus. The Emperor consolidated his power whilst allowing the Senate to exist, in order to give the impression that Rome was still a Republic.The First Emperor of Rome:But it was not… and the most horrific part was that the people of Rome knew yet did not seem to care, ironic since their ancestors did.So the question is why did the people accept this? Several reasons for this, see below.Firstly, because the Emperor promised “Panem et Circenses” (Bread and Circuses), as long as the people stayed out of politics, everything would be taken care of.Secondly, because with the permission of the Senate, he granted himself the title of “Princeps” meaning the first amongst equals, which implied that his power was temporary and that all of Rome would soon join him.Thirdly, the Emperor assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus (Chief Priest) thus establishing a divine connection to himself, which he used to justify himself as “Pater Patriae”, the father of the nation looking after the people’s wellbeing and best interests.Fourthly, Augustus prohibited the Army from being stationed in Rome. Instead, he introduced the Praetorian Guard (an elite private bodyguard force numbering in the 1000s) to quell dissent wherever it existed.Because of this heavy need to disguise the Totalitarianism that existed behind the veil of Republicanism, the Roman government became extremely paranoid and this thus caused inefficiency. In the early days, the government was a competition between the Senate and the Emperor. At its heights, the Emperor assumed a monopoly on power.The loyalty of the Praetorian Guard was not absolute either. Despite being paid substantially more than the legionary, corruption and plotting were a constant threat, corruption of the Praetorian Guards being a very real concern.Even at Rome’s heights the Praetorian Guard often played a part in the assassinations of Emperors such as Caligula, Nero and Commodus.On other instances, Emperors have been deposed of and then replaced by candidates chosen by the Guard themselves, for example Caligula’s uncle (Claudius) was installed as the next Emperor by the Guard:Under the system, the Emperors were also unnerved by talented successful Roman Generals, as they were suspected of plotting to take over Rome and thus overthrow the Emperor to take the throne for themselves. Hence the legions were prohibited from the capital. Thus it shouldn’t be surprising that a general could not be too successful drawing attention to himself, which presumably promoted inefficiency and discouraged military talent.One infamous example of this suspicion is evident, in the suicide of the renowned and successful General Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo who fell upon his own sword, when personally ordered to by the Emperor Nero:One small mistake and the people would rebel you see. You must understand that the balance between peace through bread and entertainment on one hand and rioting on the other, was a very fine line. One small deviation and it was a “house of cards”.Hence the need for public grand works to distract the people which in turn negatively affected the economy (see Rome, Economics (point 2)). Not to mention the games of the Colosseum also.In saying that though, if the Emperor needed something to be done, it would be done, Perhaps not so inefficient after all.Han:With no Democracy, Han China’s government meanwhile was built on Meritocracy, and the belief that the best person for the job was simply the best. Thus the Han Government became one that was not in fact run by the Emperor, but instead by a vast army of civil and military officials guided by Confucianism.Han set the standard for all East Asian Dynasties after it and guided by the philosophy of Confucianism, moved to promote the greatest system of social engineering for 2,000 years up until today: the creation of the civil examination system.It shaped China from then on.The exams were a test of commitment. They were purposefully made boring, long and difficult. You had to memorise a couple of thousand of extra Chinese written characters. In addition, if you passed the test, there would be a sort of “interrogation” whereby senior officials (who had already passed the application process) would test your character and sincerity, alongside your knowledge of the most important military, philosophical and political texts- which were pre-requisites for effective ruling. Not to mention also that they took years and years to study for.So the Emperor was not actually in charge completely despite paintings which suggested otherwise his grandeur:And thus, only the best, brightest, most patient and most sound of mind were chosen to rule. This was what made the Han great and allowed her to be ruled well by individuals of a sound mind. Not only for the Han but all Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese dynasties afterwards as well.FYI. This is one of the greatest achievements of the Han, a cultural contribution which remains true even today: “study hard and succeed” has consistently been proven again and again not in Asia today, but with people of East Asian descent in Western countries, with countless stories of parental sacrifice (via the working of at least two jobs) for a better future for their children, who have then succeeded well as Doctors, Dentists, Scientists, Lawyers, Accountants, Bankers and Engineers.The empire thus differed from the Romans in that the Emperor did not need to pretend to be a Republican. In fact the opposite was true, the Emperor pretended to be in charge instead. Meanwhile, the administration of the entire country was handled by the “Mandarins”, officials who had to spend years studying to rule, before sitting the exams and afterwards interviewed for their sincerity.The Mandarins themselves were split into two separate groups to better specialise in a certain field, either Civil or Military Administration:The first group was dressed in red and wore a ministerial headgear equipped with two feathers, one on each side. This was the military group who administered the Han Military . This group often had personal battlefield experience and sat on the right side of the Emperor in the Imperial Palace’s main hall.Then there was the group seated on the left side of the Emperor during “business hours” in the Imperial Palace’s main hall. They wore black and donned a ministerial headpiece with no feathers to signal their civil affairs status, they were responsible for the running of peaceful areas of Imperial Administration.In addition, due to the economic policies of the Han which I already described back in point #2 (Economics), the Han had extensive and efficient control over their Empire at their peak. The Han Government also had the support of the majority of their people due to the high status of peasants in the Empire compared with the rest of the world, and the pro-peasant policies which I described before (low taxes, protection from the rich).My consensus: The Han Government outclasses the Roman Government in capabilities, efficiency and complexity. It was also more stable than the Roman system. The point will go to the Han.Score: Han (3) VS Rome (1)Logistical EngineeringComparison between Rome and Han capabilities:Where Rome has utterly massacred the Han in however is in the realm of public infrastructure which promotes economic efficiency and enriches the empire (relates to economics also) whilst providing a logistical advantage for military campaigns.Han China had 35,400 km of mostly unpaved roads whilst Rome had 400,000 km of which 80,500 km were paved.Regarding bridges, the Han had 2 arch bridges compared to 931 Roman bridges- most of which were arch bridges.A Roman Aqueduct showing off the famous Roman invention of the Arch, the pinnacle of Roman intelligence and superior engineering skills:At 1 point, the Roman Empire was divided into 113 provinces, traversed by 372 great road links.Also unlike the Han, the Roman Legions themselves knew how to build these structures independently. They were often responsible for the building of Rome’s vast network of roads such as the Via Appia:My consensus: Considering all of this, I would give the point to Rome. Roman Armies could traverse their empire much faster than the Han would be able to, due to the widespread road system and network of bridges. It would cut travel time and the legions would be in place before the Han Imperial Army by days if not weeks.Score: Han (3) VS Rome (2)The InfantryRome:Here is your standard Roman Legionary:Your average legionary (at heights) came equipped with the following factors which gave him a slight advantage over the Han Footsoldier:Gladius (short sword), a special Roman sword which could be used to stab efficiently, yet manoeuvre to a great extent whilst fighting in close formations along with other legionaries so you wouldn’t accidentally stab your friends. A short sword wouldn’t bend as easily as well and was lighter also. The sword allowed you to thrust which is better than cutting because the legionary could also defend himself whilst attacking.Lorica Segmentata (body armour). The famous Roman armour used a concept called “case hardening”. It utilised soft iron on the inside and superior steel (of which the Romans produced the best in the world) on the outside. Roman armour is extremely hard to pierce. One minor disadvantage though was its sheer weight (9kg), which could wear down its user should the need to run uphill or swim arise.Scutum (rectangular shield), look at the image below, it represents the famous Roman Tortoise Formation. Arrows wouldn’t be so effective against it, say no more:Pilum (Javelin). My personal favorite Roman weapon. A legionary often had 1 or 2 of them. Before charging into battle, the pilums would be thrown at the enemy. The design is such that if the enemy blocked your pilum, their shield would become too heavy to hold, thus they’d have to throw it away. The steel “head” of the Javelin was purposefully made extremely long to make it break off if the enemy tried to remove the Pilum, and throw it back at you.Elite training, discipline and experience (of 20 years service)The legionary was a very unique specimen. He had to have been tall firstly at 160–180 cm. The training he received ensured he knew how to swim, and build roads. The legionary once in the legions would not be allowed to leave for 20 years. This gave them a great advantage over the Han who only trained and served for a total of 2 years.If he deserted the battlefield with his cohort, 1/10 men would be executed, the execution was carried out by stoning where 1 man would be stoned by the other 9 men. Sleeping whilst on duty would get you kicked out of the camp’s fortifications for one night.Roman training was designed to impart the values of Virtus and Auctoritas, thus it was required to be vigorous as such.Han:Meanwhile, here is your standard Han Infantryman:Your average Han Infantryman (at heights) came equipped with the following factors:Dao (single handed, single edged sword), the Dao was 1.12 m long and was made of steel rather than bronze (as swords were first made of in the earliest part of the Han Dynasty). Its weakness being used by the infantry however was the lack of ability to thrust, instead it was used to slice. However, the sword was made through “folding and forging” techniques which acted to improve the quality and strength of the steel by minimizing impurities and spreading the carbon content evenly throughout the steel.(Image sourced from enlightenmentswords.com)Lamellar Armour- made of hundreds of small overlapping metal and/or leather plates laced together to make a flexible and light coat of armour. Coat of plates consisted of hundreds of small non-overlapping metal or leather plates stitched or riveted together. Though offering much less protection than the legionnaire’s Lorica Segmentata, the Han infantryman’s armour was much lighter allowing the soldier to move faster and tire out at a slower rate.Image sourced from: Han Dynasty Armor. 汉甲Ji (Halberd), a common infantry weapon which combined a dagger axe with a spear (the cavalry used it as well). It was very effective. The Halberd was an especially long spear which came attached with a hook. You could thrust and stab whilst also using it to hook onto the enemy’s leg and pull back to dismember it completely or at least severely cripple it. Because of the Ji’s length, you could safely kill dozens of enemies at a very safe distance. It could of course also be used as a long range double handed axe.Han Infantry Shield. Really, it pales in comparison to the Roman Scutum, as you can see the shield is extremely small and offers minimal protection to its user. On the other hand, the small shield offered more maneuverability than the scutum whilst offering some form of protection against arrows. In addition, it was also much lighter than the scutum, thus you could use it to offset an enemy’s balance via a swift blow to the head.Not so elite training or disciplineThe Han Infantry were not trained for as long nor as vigorously as the Romans. The conscription policy insisted on 1 year long training, and 1 year long national service, rather than the 20 years of service mandatory for Legionaries. Thus it is not wrong to insist that the training of the Han Infantry was much inferior to that as received by the Legionnaire.My consensus: Regarding equipment, it’s a close call. But where the Romans triumph is in their training and discipline which far outclass the training and discipline of the Han Infantry.Score: Han (3) VS Rome (3)Naval ForcesComparison between Rome and Han capabilities:This is going to be very brief since neither empires were much of a naval superpower.But I think it’s safe to say that the Roman Trireme (note the huge ram at the front)…… would annihilate the Han’s Naval ship which didn’t have a ram and offered minimal protection:My consensus: The Romans would defeat the Han at sea. The Han were a major landpower which utilised the Silk Road as its key source of living. It wasn’t for another 1,000 years until China became a dominant naval power.However, a not so commonly known fact also was that the Romans would actually try to avoid sea travel whenever possible. This was because they feared the existence of terrifying sea monsters, possibly after reading too many Greek Myths and Legends.Score: Han (3) VS Rome (4)Archery WarfareComparison between Rome and Han capabilities:This is also going to be very short as archers are archers. You can’t really say much about them.Roman Archery wasn’t anything special however. As the Romans themselves were not skilled or natural archers, they relied on Spanish Auxiliaries to function as their “Sagittarii”. The main weapon they utilised was the “composite bow” which is a fancy way of saying standard bow.The Roman Sagittarii:The Han Dynasty meanwhile not only used the standard bow also, but in addition, two recent Chinese inventions: the Crossbow and the Repeating Crossbow.The Chinese Repeating Crossbow:The primary advantage of using the non-repeating and repeating variant was the lack of training required (which was key because anyone could use it in a small amount of time), and the fire rate it allowed. This was good for the Han Army as they only received one year of training (and not to the same quality as the legions either).Thus in theory, a Roman Tortoise formation could be overwhelmed with Crossbows, the sheer quantity of which could force the Scutum to become too heavy to carry anymore.My consensus: The point will go to both Rome and Han. Even though Han clearly has the better projectile technologies, an arrow in the face is still an arrow in the face. An archer trained and deadly is still an archer. Thus the point goes to both Han and Rome.Score: Han (4) VS Rome (5)The CavalryRome:As the Empire grew, Rome’s superior cavalry became the reason why her enemies avoided full scale direct battles with the Romans as much as possible.Although the Romans themselves were not an equine people, their expertise was derived from Greek fighting techniques, and well supplemented with talent sourced via the Auxilia Cavalry from all over the Empire especially Mesopotamia.As the Romans had no stirrup however, the saddle was improved to have two front and two rear horns to keep the rider in position.The Roman Cavalry leading the charge against the Dacians (Dacia goes by the name of Romania today):Like the Han, the Romans tried to source their horses from Parthia and Central Asia whenever possible, however Parthia which was hostile to Rome (and friendly to Han) tried to stop them as much as possible. However, in the OP’s scenario, Parthia is under Roman control. Spain also had vast quantities of a superior horse breed.The Standard Cavalry unit wore chainmail for armour, and possessed a Hexagonal shield along with two swords (one long, one broad).Despite the well paying profession of the cavalryman, its supreme importance, and vitality, the Cavalry never replaced Roman Infantry as the core unit, nor did it hold as high a position in the military like the Han Cavalry did. However, at Rome’s heights the cavalry enjoyed a privileged position.There were also tournaments (hippika gymnasia) to provide an incentive to perfect riding skills according to Roman CavalryHan:Whilst the Roman Empire is famed for their elite Legionnaires, the Han is famous for their elite Cavalry, amongst the finest if not the finest at the time. The reason was simple. Han China learned from the best.In her early days, the Han was besieged by a superior enemy, a “Proto-Mongol” Imperial Confederation called the Xiongnu Empire (shown below next to Early Han):The Xiongnu were vicious fighters who fought like the Mongols and waged all their wars on horses, whilst equipping their riders with bow and arrow. This allowed the Xiongnu to dominate the Han for the first 70 years of her existence.Over time however, someone had the brilliant idea that if you can’t beat them using your own strategy, use theirs.Soon after, hundreds upon hundreds of “mercenary” Xiongnu were hired to improve the Han Imperial Cavalry, merging Xiongnu and Han strategies and military techniques together.The chariot (useless on open fields) which was used up until then by the Han, was avoided henceforth whilst the soldiers were trained in the ways of the Xiongnu.Thus the birth of the greatest cavalry in the world at the time begun.A drawing of a Heavy Cavalryman of the Eastern (9–220 AD) Han Dynasty:Over a course of 224 years, the Han fought the Xiongnu on their own home turf in what is modern day Mongolia (a place with open fields, suitable for horse warfare), and eventually triumphed due to the efforts of the Han Cavalry. The Dao (Han sword) which I mentioned before, while horrible for infantry usage (due to lack of ability to thrust) would have boded well for the Cavalry, who would use it to swiftly cut down the enemy.The Han Cavalry led the subjugation of the Xiongnu Horse Nomads:If you still remember, the setting of this question is taking place on the Han-Roman border of Central Asia- a place of open fields. Is it not reasonable then to suggest that the Han, who had extensive experience with horse fighting on the open fields, would triumph?And it wasn’t only the Han Cavalry themselves which was elite, but also the species of Equines which the Han used.Imported straight out of Central Asia, was the “Ferghana Horse”:It was a superior breed of horse which faithfully allowed the Han to achieve dominance (in real life) in the vast punishing fields of Central and Northern Asia.In addition, the Han had two prime advantages over the Romans.The first was the greater importance of the Han Cavalry which though perhaps not as important as the infantry, played a greater role in Han military campaigns.The second advantage was the Han invention of the “Stirrup”, a device which Rome’s mounted troops did not appear to have. The stirrup was a device attached to each side of a horse's saddle, in the form of a loop with a flat base to support the rider's foot.My consensus: The point has to go to the Han. The Romans themselves were not horse masters. I personally think that the Han Cavalry being strong enough to defeat the Xiongnu out on open fields in the middle of their own home in Mongolia, would crush the less experienced Roman Cavalry on the open fields in an environment which the Han Cavalry specialized in, and were most familiar with.The infamous battle of Carrhae (53 BC) showed this in action, Rome’s forces numbered 50,000 of which 4,000 were cavalrymen, the Parthians numbered 10,000 Cavalry. The end result? 38 dead Parthians… and 20,000 dead Romans.Score: Han (5) VS Rome (5)Final result: Draw. Now comment below with who you think would have won…Final word from the author: The real reason as to why it would be a draw though is because in real life, the Romans and Han had already both fought with Empires of near peer status. Yet, neither could be properly subdued despite being given the chance to do so for literally hundreds of years. Rome could never fully subdue the Parthian Empire. Han could never fully subdue the Xiongnu Empire. So then how in the world could either side win, if Han and Rome each shared a border??? It’s crazy, it would always be a draw. Some freak accident would have to occur for one side to win or lose.Bonus Content (your reward for reading until the end), see the armies of Rome and Han come to life below on TV:The Roman Army in action in Neil Marshall’s Centurion (2010), note to readers, in this clip the Romans were ambushed hence they lost (something very rare):The Roman Army in action in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000):The Roman Army in John Milius’ Rome (2005–07):The Han Army in action in John Woo’s Red Cliff (2008):If you enjoyed my answer, make sure you upvote it so other people can see it. I’m sick and tired of all these new Rome VS Han questions popping up recently, so here is the one answer to end and rule them all. Do me a favour and upvote it or share it to your Quora blog. Thanks! ;)