国外网友热议：汉朝鼎盛时期对阵罗马帝国：谁会赢？

Fontaine
This is yet another hypothetical historical question: because of their geographical location, these two empires could never have gone to war!

这是又一个假设性的历史问题：由于地理位置的原因，这两个帝国根本不可能发生战争！


If we were to indulge in a purely hypothetical scenario,Rome clearly possessed a superior navy, while the Han dynasty's Chinese navy wasn't even a real navy. This was determined by geographical location.

如果我们沉浸在纯粹的假设情景中，罗马明显拥有更强的海军，而汉代的中国海军甚至不能算是真正意义上的海军。这由地理位置所决定。

Even from a map, it's clear that the Roman Empire was a typical Mediterranean empire, originating on the Apennine Peninsula, with vast oceans within its territory. The Han Dynasty, on the other hand, was a typical continental empire, with its territory largely contiguous. Simply comparing area, the Han Dynasty at its peak reached approximately 6 million square kilometers, while Rome's was 5-5.5 million square kilometers. However, overall, they were still quite similar.

即便从地图上也很清楚：罗马帝国是典型的地中海帝国，发源于意大利半岛，版图与海洋紧密相连。另一方面，汉朝是典型的大陆帝国，领土大多相连。单看面积，汉朝鼎盛时约为600万平方公里，而罗马约为500–550万平方公里。不过总体上它们还是相当相近的。

If considering land forces, I would choose the Han dynasty. Due to its enemies (xiongnu and various nomadic peoples), almost every powerful Chinese dynasty possessed a strong, large cavalry army.

如果考虑陆军，我会选择汉朝。由于其对手是匈奴及各种游牧民族，几乎所有强大的中国王朝都拥有强大且规模可观的骑兵部队。


At its peak, the Han Dynasty had approximately 150,000-200,000 cavalry, well-equipped and highly trained. Combined with archers, this laid a decisive advantage in defeating and driving out the xiongnu.

汉朝鼎盛时大约拥有15万到20万骑兵，装备精良、训练有素。配合弓手，这在打败并驱逐匈奴方面形成了决定性优势。


Roman infantry, especially heavy infantry, was clearly superior to that of the Han Dynasty. However, if I had to choose, I still believe that a strong cavalry + archers > a strong infantry.

罗马步兵，尤其是重步兵，明显优于汉朝的步兵。然而如果非要抉择，我仍然认为强大的骑兵+弓手 > 强大的步兵。

A similar example is the Song dynasty. The Chinese also possessed a strong heavy infantry, but due to a lack of cavalry, they were consistently at a disadvantage in wars against the Khitan, Jurchen, and later the Mongols.

类似的例子是宋朝。中国在宋代也有强大的重步兵，但由于缺乏骑兵，他们在与契丹、女真以及后来的蒙古人的战争中始终处于劣势。

Ultimately, all of this is just speculation, and it doesn't really mean much.

归根结底，这些都只是推测，意义并不大。

If I had to choose one, I would choose the Han China ,n that era, the army was actually far more important than the navy.

如果非要选一个，我会选汉朝——在那个时代，陆军实际上比海军重要得多。
公子江

powerful cavalry + archers > heavy infantry; agree, the Song 's heavy infantry was also formidable, with their heaviest armor weighing nearly 88 pounds, but they were mediocre in both the quantity and quality of their cavalry, thus being suppressed by nomadic tribes.

强大的骑兵＋弓手＞重步兵；同意，宋代的重步兵也很可观，他们最重的铠甲接近88磅（约40公斤），但在骑兵的数量和质量上都平平，因此被游牧民族所压制。
会飞的鲸鱼

During the Song Dynasty, there were heavily armored infantry, while the jin Dynasty in the north had heavily armored cavalry. In terms of military equipment, the Song army was not stronger than the jin army. This was because the jin occupied the core regions in the north and had the ability to produce heavy armor, and the jin also had better warhorses. Heavily armored cavalry had an absolute advantage over infantry in the plains.

在宋朝有重装步兵，而北方的金朝则有重装骑兵。从军备上看，宋军不如金军。这是因为金占据了北方的核心地区，有能力制造重型盔甲，而且金军的战马也更优。在平原上，重装骑兵对步兵具有绝对优势。

Jesuan Wu
Han infantry had standard issue crossbows that were stronger than any bow/crossbow the Romans had at the time, and Han swords were longer than Roman swords.

汉朝步兵配备的制式弩弩力强于当时罗马人所拥有的任何弓/弩，汉剑也比罗马剑更长。


Alset Alokin
The Han defeated the steppe barbarians. Steppe barbarians went west and entire Europe and west Asia got shook to their very core. Han could destroy rome any day. Take my bets now

汉朝击败了草原蛮族。那些草原蛮族向西迁移，整个欧洲和西亚都被震动。汉朝随时都能摧毁罗马。现在请押我的赌注吧。

Michael Staengl
You forgot how competent the Romans were during their whole history in adapting to new environments and enemies.
They would have quickly adapted the Chinese military model if it would have been the superior one, ………,and improved it.
The biggest problem the Romans had in the 1450s that they ran out of territory and therefore resources which enabled Sultan Mehmed II “Fatih” to conquer the Roman capital of Constantinopolis.

你忘了罗马人在其整个历史中适应新环境和新敌人的能力。他们若发现中国的军事模式更优，很快就会吸收并改进它。罗马人在1450年代面临的最大问题是领土和资源枯竭，这使得苏丹穆罕默德二世“征服者”得以攻克罗马首都君士坦丁堡。

Fontaine
When the Han invaded what is now Central Asia, they encountered a highly Hellenistic country. Initially, they were unfamiliar with it, but after adapting, they successfully conquered it.

当汉朝入侵今中亚地区时，遭遇的是一个高度希腊化的国家。起初他们对此不熟悉，但在适应之后，成功征服了该地。

Fontaine
The lack of high-quality and large-scale cavalry was Rome's biggest problem; even during the war against Attila, the Romans relied most on their infantry regiments.

缺乏高质量的大规模骑兵是罗马最大的问题；即使在对抗阿提拉的战争中，罗马人也主要依赖他们的步兵部队。

Nospmis Leinad
That's mostly because the Western half of the empire was bankrupt by that time. The Eastern half of the empire relied heavily on heavy armoured cavalry; the Cataphract and lasted another 1000 years longer than the Western portion of the “Roman Empire”

那主要是因为当时帝国的西部已经破产。帝国的东部则高度依赖重装骑兵——卡塔弗拉克特（全身甲重骑兵）——东罗马/拜占庭部分比“罗马帝国”的西部部分多持续了大约一千年。

Marketman
A common myth claims the Romans could simply copy any technology/model they encountered, but they lacked the know-how and technology to mass-produce a high draw weight handheld Han (recurve) composite bows/prods (this includes the trigger mechanism capable of supporting such a weight) needed for strong crossbows.

一个常见的误解认为罗马人可以简单复制他们遇到的任何技术/样式，但他们缺乏大规模生产高拉力手持式汉式（反曲）复合弓/弩弓（包括能承受如此拉力的触发机构）所需的专门知识和技术，而这些是打造强大弩机所必需的。

Producing even 1 handheld 300/400/500+ pound draw weight (recurve) composite bows/prods used in crossbows would have been a major challenge. (even until 14th/15th century in Europe)

即便只生产一把用于弩的手持式300/400/500磅以上拉力的（反曲）复合弓/弩弓，也将是极大的挑战。（在欧洲这甚至直到14、15世纪仍是如此）

It is even doubtful the Romans could mass-produce 150/200 pound composite recurve bows, as their own composite bows does not exceeded a 100 pound draw weight.

甚至可以怀疑罗马人能否批量生产150/200磅拉力的复合反曲弓，因为他们自己的复合弓拉力并未超过100磅。

This limitation also applied to blade weapons like swords. Unlike the archaeological discoveries of Han swords, Roman swords were not differentially heat treated nor did they understand quenching, making them inconsistent and brittle rather than having a resilient core with a hardened edge.

这种局限也适用于刀剑等冷兵器。与汉代出土的剑不同，罗马剑没有进行差别化热处理，他们也不掌握淬火工艺，因此罗马剑往往不够均衡且脆弱，而不是具有韧性的芯和硬化的刃。

The quality of Roman sword steel was inconsistent, and both the Romans and Persians actively sought after superior steel, particularly from sources like the Han.

罗马剑钢的质量不稳定，罗马人和波斯人都积极寻找更优质的钢材，尤其是像汉朝这样的来源。

Similarly, the Romans could copy the tough hardened leather armor of the Warring States period to a limited extent. They lacked ingredients like tung oil, lacquer, and porcelain fragments, which were necessary to further enhance the armor's defensive capabilities (hardness).

同样，罗马人在一定程度上可以仿制战国时期那种经硬化处理的韧性皮甲，但他们缺乏桐油、漆和陶片等材料，而这些材料对于进一步提升盔甲的防护性能（硬度）是必要的。

Yugan Talovich
A lot of this would depend on where they fought. I don’t know as much about the Roman Empire as I do the Han, but I recall that, being in the Mediterranean, the Romans were good at naval warfare. Most Chinese fighting was inland, or at most on rivers and lakes. So if the war had been in an ocean, Rome would have had the upper hand.

很多事情取决于交战地点。我对罗马帝国的了解不及对汉朝，但我记得罗马人因处于地中海而擅长海战。大多数中国战事发生在内陆，顶多在江河湖泊上。所以如果战争发生在海洋上，罗马会占上风。

Inland, the Han would have won. The Han had some of the greatest strategists in history, but the Romans were more used to brute force, and overawing culturally less developed armies, such as the barbarians to the north. China was highly developed culturally, and less prone to being overawed. The Han was preceded by the short lived Ch’in / Qin dynasty, but the founder of the Han was born during the Warring States period. The Warring States was several centuries of fighting to the death, so the Han were well equipped to take all comers. This is one reason they developed such great strategists. They were well prepared to take down anybody fighting by brute force.

在内陆作战，汉朝会获胜。汉朝拥有历史上一些最伟大的战略家，而罗马人更习惯于以蛮力压制、震慑那些文化上不那么发达的军队，比如北方的“野蛮人”。中国文化高度发达，不容易被吓倒。汉朝之前是短命的秦朝，但汉朝的开国者出生于战国时期。战国是几百年的生死搏斗，因此汉朝有能力应付各种来敌。这也是他们能够培养出伟大战略家的原因之一。他们准备充分，能够打败任何以蛮力作战的敌人。

In the end, I give the victory to the Han. Why? One key reason for Roman domination was their technological superiority over their neighbors. Roman technology would have met its match in the Han (aside from building roads and aqueducts). China produced better steel. Also, Chinese cavalry had stirrups, making them vastly superior to Roman forces. Chinese composite bows were more powerful than Roman bows.

最终，我把胜利判给汉朝。为什么？罗马统治的一个关键原因是他们在技术上优于邻国。但在汉朝面前（除修路和水道外）罗马技术会遇到对手。中国出产更好的钢。同时，中国骑兵使用马镫，使其远胜罗马部队。中国的复合弓也比罗马的弓更有力。

This leads us to the decisive factor that definitely gives victory to the Han:

这引出决定性因素，使汉朝必胜：


the crossbow. The crossbow had been invented during the Warring States period and was used to deadly advantage by the Han. In contrast, Europe didn’t start using the crossbow until over a thousand years later. With their powerful, efficient crossbows, the Han would have punched holes through Roman formations, quickly ending the war.

弩。弩发明于战国时期，并被汉朝致命地加以利用。相比之下，欧洲直到一千多年后才开始广泛使用弩。凭借他们强大且高效的弩，汉军能穿透罗马阵型，迅速结束战斗。

At any rate, it would have been a rousing fight, and worth buying tickets to watch.
(picture from the Han)

无论如何，这将是一场激烈的较量，值得买票观看。
（图片来自汉朝）

Hu Shi xiong
The Han are built differently. Definitely more warlike compared to later generations
I kept seeing Romans said to excel at naval warfare but that didn't seem to be true until east Roman periods . They didn't have peer rivals during empire era and lost to Carthaginians

汉朝与众不同。相比后世，确实更好战。我经常看到有人说罗马擅长海战，但这似乎直到东罗马时期才成立。在帝国时代他们并无对手可比，并且曾败给迦太基人。

Adam Wu
Han metallurgy was very impressive. They were doing things with steel that the Western civilizations would not match until well into the late Medi period. That said the products of that metallurgy would still be pretty expensive. Probably only their elite units would be equipped with the highest quality equipment. The bulk of their conscxt militia forces would have been given lower cost less advanced equipment.

汉代冶金术非常了得。他们在钢铁加工方面的成就，西方文明要到中世纪后期才能赶上。不过，那些冶金制品仍然相当昂贵。可能只有精锐部队配备最高质量的装备；大部分征召的民兵则会配备成本更低、技术含量较差的装备。