Entrust Administration, Inc. The Entrust New Accounts Team: Fill & Download for Free

Preparation: the Romans had a professional army made up of well-motivated volunteers and with superhuman physical and tactical training, literally between the forced marches of 30 km covered per day and the exercises with the wooden sword, and the exercises in the maneuvers i legionaries fully deserved their salary, and this routine was repeated for 25 years if not more, they were perfectly framed to work in unison, both in building ditches and fortified camps and in performing complex formations such as testudo or wedge in a few seconds both in trying very difficult maneuvers, all with a coordination that can make the marines jealous impossible undertakings for the troops of the Han dynasty which were composed of conscripts with less than 2 years of service, who could not wait to return to their families, the Roman non-commissioned officers were the backbone of the Roman army, that is, the centurions veteran men who they fought in the front line, and that often remained in service for 40 years both to fight but also to train soldiers, unlike the republican era army the imperial army was not governed by senators, but by equites, these officers came from long careers with mandatory steps that proved their ability and efficiency, we started with the tres militiae, that is, the initial career that included 3 steps: it started with the command of an auxiliary cohort, then with a legionary cohort, the the last step was to command a cavalry wing, after completing the tres militiae the knight could access the highest positions in the state like the procurateles or the prefecture, more and more often the equites came from the most humble classes (humiliores) who were promoted by legionaries thanks to their ability to the rank of centurions primus pili (singular primus pilus) and therefore they obtained the status of equites, on the contrary Chinese generals were often named with the emperor's favor for sympathies, without a specific career and most important the weren’t permanent , although they also had great generals such as wei quing or ban chao, but their tactics are not studied today like those of caesar or caius Marius roman officers even evaluated many things such as the position of the sun, sometimes they could position the troops so that the enemy had the sun on their face, or they assessed the conformation of the terrainSpecialization: the Romans had specialized groups (immunes) for each purpose, they had a fixed group of doctors who treated the wounded and even had hospitals that could house 10% of a legion, and then each legion had a battalion of professional military engineers very well prepared, as well as a secret service, the Roman army's diet was also designed to support the army's performance, very protein and high in fat was much better than the Chinese diet based on white rice like the diet of their civilians, these Army support groups were a real revolution in military science, the Chinese recruited non-specialized non-military personnel in case of need, but they did not have specialized battalions, with all the handicaps deriving from them, for organization and specialization the Roman army he was incredibly better than his Chinese counterpart who was much more informal, just think of the eser I quote Chinese was an army of conscripts while the Roman army was a professional army, it would suffice to say this to say that the Romans were much stronger than the ChineseMilitary engineering: as already mentioned the necessary romans of the battalions of professional military engineers, these engineers were not only very versatile, designed by designing complex works such as roads or waterways for logistics, fortified fields during a campaign in enemy territory which therefore makes it impossible for the enemy to act like at night, ramps and especially as they did to alesia of the wooden walls that surround the city in order to hinder the intervention of aid, or the attack of external exercise coming to the rescue, all these works the Romans they performed in a few days, or in a few hours in the case of castrums, during the siege of alesia in the installed Romans 2 wooden walls with a total length of 36 km with towers, ditches, and traps in less than 3 weeks, this built made possible by the discipline of Roman soldiers who used to work in teams better coordinated the work, and will immediately turn into excavators, masons or carpenters, also the engineers built many siege machines such as the scorpion which was useful to hurl 4 projectiles per minute at 400 meters with surgical precision, the antagonist of the trebuchet used to shoot bullets from 50 kg to 600 meters, the ballista could shoot from bullets from 28 kg to 460 meters even if in the times of constantine the romans invented a new all-iron ballista called ballista fulminalis who would throw darts at 1,100 meters this was certainly the most advanced weapon in the ancient world but not the take into consideration seen in that period the han dynasty no longer existed, by weight of bullets and range the unsecured Chinese nie nte, a part of the trebuchet which was not very precise and above all did not use it often, however the Romans not only only this artillery already available and ready to use but it was also used in larger numbers in fact a legion had 55 scorpion, 10 onagers, and 60 ballistas, moreover the Romans used them not only in sieges, but also in pitched battles, giving Rome a huge missile power, the Chinese know the trebuchet experience in the art of siege during the Han dynasty, which for the the more he fights against the nomads, the Chinese are not a department of military engineers so if necessary they turn to outsiders of civil society, therefore the times were much longer (months) and above all they obtained performances of men not used to working according to the needs of the military therefore the performance was much lower, thought if the Romans had witnessed a change and the emperor connected to the rescue of the capital found the besiegers def esi from a wooden wall and a moat, at least required executed by the explorers because in their last report 2 weeks before not proven said the existence of the wall and did not believe that barbarians have created a wall in such a short time, or the Chinese and Roman army is on the yellow river, the Chinese are preparing to respond to the Romans who arrive with boats and rafts and disembark matter of days, the Roman military genius camp in three hours builds a pontoon bridge and the Chinese find themselves Roman army in their camp, these are all advantages not to be underestimated.Economy and logistics: both serve a mass production of weapons, but the production of weapons in China was in the hands of the state, while the Romans were entrusted to the college of private companies that won the contracts to supply a legion and then to a very small extent entrusted to the army locksmiths department, the difference is that the Roman college saw the fact that they had to renew the contract they tried to pay the best quality weapons, in fact the Roman weapons were much more standardized both in quality and in length , while in China the controlled state officials trying to cut production costs reduced the quality of weapons as kui shi complained or produced armor that did not enter the bodies of soldiers, this complaint dates back to 150 CE roughly the clash between Rome and China would have happened in this period, moreover the Romans guaranteed much better logistic assistance than that of the dynasty they have in fact with Traja n what is believed to be the Roman army was approximately numerically higher (375,000 soldiers) than the Chinese Han (350,000), all this was due both to the organization of the infrastructure of the supply lines, roads, and sometimes also canals, built from the military genius they connected the supply lines the bases here were in the castrum that is in the old fortified camps that the Romans built when they entered enemy territory, and then they also built large warehouses for storage, moreover the Romans also had an efficient military bureaucracy capable to manage the army accounts and resources (weapons, food etc etc) to deal with this there was the prefectus castrorum, the Romans could project their strength much within the enemy territory and conduct military campaigns for years, l the most striking example is giulio cesare who from the logistical bases of marseille led a campaign to great britain, or trajan who from c ircesium on the euphrates arriving to the persian gulf and elam (Iran), or the most striking specimens were brought forward in africa where the Roman legions on several occasions managed to cross the sahara desert (2000km), the Chinese made expeditions punitive through the desert, but they only lasted a season and then they had to go back.the Roman economy better endured the decades-long wars on a large scale through devaluation, while the Chinese during the expansion campaigns of han wudi one of the largest in Chinese history sent emptied the imperial coffers and forced the emperor to create a monopoly on iron and salt, the Chinese would never have been able to financially support a war against the Roman Empire.Weapons and tactics: the Romans and the hans had 2 different ways of fighting, the Chinese were a mixed army where 36% of their armed forces consisted of light cavalry, which he needed to fight the archers riding the xiong nu, but they would not have been very effective against heavy infantry units, the Chinese normally had no shields the infantryman han usually had only the sword, a sword that in theory was to be of higher quality than the Roman gladius, but as already said the quality of the swords the Chinese lowered a lot when the emperor made the forges statistic, the real strength of the Chinese army was the missile power consisting of crossbows and compound bows which used in large quantities as the Chinese did causing great damage, which however were not sufficient to per se to win a battle, moreover the roman testudo would have mitigated a lot the damages, the chinese armors were not standardized like the roman ones there were various types of armor of leather, iron and bronze, the most popular was of simple leather, those of iron generally were armor flakes, resistant against arrows but the swords cut them like butter, the Romans generally used the segmented lorica made by segments of steel joined internally by leather laces, a plate armor, this was totally impenetrable both the arrows and the swords bounced over it, even the Roman steel helmets were built with a protuberance on the forehead that protected the legionaries from the blows, the shield consisted of 2 layers of wood and one of leather, 6 mm thick could repel any type of dart or weapon and above all it was 120 cm long therefore it offered almost total coverage to the legionnaire, the gladius was a short sword very manageable and much lighter than that of the Chinese and was made to stab the enemy instead of pulling a slash, moreover the blade was very wide so even if the enemy survived the blow he died bled and each legionnaire had with him 2 heavy javelins called pilum a capable weapon to pass through shield and armor and kill the enemy, these masterpieces were not only able to do a slaughter but also to disrupt the enemy lines making them uncoordinated in the attack therefore making the battle lost at the start, many times it was the javelins the ace of the Romans, the Romans fought with the infantry arranged on three lines (triples acies) and the cavalry on the flanks when the first line yielded the second supported it, this defense in depth prevented the enemies from breaking through the Roman deployment, or together with the cavalry he could perform maneuvers like the pincer maneuver, the battle tactic of the legionnaires on the field was this: after the javelins were thrown there was or frontal clash then the legionaries who were behind covered with the shield the left side of the legionary who was in front and who hit the right stabbing one enemy at a time almost in total safety, it is for this reason that in the reports of the battles fought in ancient Rome we read that the Romans made massacres while they suffered a few hundred losses, it is not propaganda but the result of a clear tactical superiority of the Roman army, as regards cavalry the Chinese had an advantage over the Romans as they had the unknown technology bracket to the Romans, however the Romans at the time of trajan or hadrian also had better cavalry than at the time of Caesar, at least in numerical terms, since in the second century there were approximately 75,000 (auxiliary) knights, but they also had many anti-cavalry weapons such as the caltrop a multi-pointed nail that crippled the horses and then there were also many departments of ger spearmen handles, also the artillery would have decimated both the infantry and the Chinese cavalry, the knights who would have arrived at the Roman deployment would still not pass the wall of shields of the legion, who says that the Romans had problems with cavalry says one half truth, because the Romans were put in difficulty by the armored knights (cataphract) because of their impact strength and more by archers on horseback because of their hit and run tactics, but they would have had no problem against the light cavalry of the they have as they did not against other peoples who used it as Celts and Germans ,even a silly thing like studded sandals would give the Romans an additional advantage as they allowed the legionnaire to have a much more solid position on the groundPolitics: the argument that china was more stable because it still exists is extremely fallacious, the survival of china as a national state depended on many factors such as the geographic isolation of china which protected west from mountains and deserts protected it from dangerous invasions of others permanent empires (Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, and Timur), the cinacè has been destroyed and has been recreated many times, they have not had two thousand years of united in a row, by the way the comparison in question is not made between China and Rome, but but between the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, to make an honest comparison it must be said that the Han Dynasty collapsed due to a civil war due to instability, while Rome survived the internal military struggles that took place simultaneously with an epidemic that exterminate a quarter of the population of the empire, and large-scale foreign invasions, maintaining their territorial integrity, demonstrating the integrity of the system, and then if inc luding the Eastern Roman Empire it can be verified that the Roman state lasted much longer than the Chinese one, and then the problems related to the succession in the Roman Empire appeared after the fall of the Han dynasty so it should not be included in a hypothetical confrontation, in fact in the first 2 centuries of the empire they were totally free of political struggle for the succession, excluded for the succession of nerone,the difference between the Chinese and the Roman government was that the bureaucracy was more centralized, while the Roman one tended to be limited to accounting and financial and legal aspects, leaving the administration to the local authorities, this system had more than one advantage, first of all it was leaner and cheaper, and then allowed for a faster execution of the administration and moreover officials more independent of the central government could perform their task efficiently regardless of whether there was a capable emperor such as augustus and trajan at the throne or if instead there was a mad emperor like neron or caligula , and even guaranted less corruption , and more control over the territoryRoman military engineering - WikipediaImmunes - WikipediaMilitary of the Han dynasty - WikipediaBallista - WikipediaScorpio (weapon) - WikipediaHan–Xiongnu War - WikipediaRoman army - WikipediaRoman infantry tactics - WikipediaLocal government (ancient Roman) - WikipediaGovernment of the Han dynasty - Wikipediadata:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns='SVG namespace' viewBox='0 0 1 1'%3E%3C/svg%3E