中国汉朝的军事实力究竟有多强？为何常与罗马相提并论，却远不及罗马广为人知？

FontaineFollow
The Han dynasty's military strength was undoubtedly very powerful, a great conqueror in no way inferior to the Roman Empire of the same period. However, after the Industrial Revolution, the narrative was essentially controlled by Westerners, so its fame naturally cannot be compared to Rome's; only those who truly study and are interested in history would know about it.
When the Han dynasty was first established, China's territory was only about 2 million square kilometers, but at its peak, the Han expanded its territory to about 6-6.5 million square kilometers.
Its territory reached what is now Vietnam, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, and Central Asia.
I think the Han dynasty > Rome (of course, the difference between the two is not significant).
In my eyes, the Han dynasty at its peak was the most powerful empire of its time.
The best cavalry + the best archers and crossbowmen + militarism + the organization and resources of a settled civilization; these are the reasons I give for this conclusion.
Nomadic tribes (xiongnu) had a large number of excellent cavalry, but in terms of organization and economy, they were destined to be incomparable to settled civilizations.
The Roman Empire had excellent infantry legions, but in terms of cavalry and archers/crossbowmen, they were completely inferior to the Han dynasty. Currently, Rome's greatest advantage might only be that its ordinary soldiers had better armor;

汉朝的军事力量无疑是非常强大的，其作为征服者的伟大丝毫不逊于同时期的罗马帝国。然而，工业革命后，历史叙事权基本掌握在西方人手中，因此其知名度自然无法与罗马相比；只有那些真正研究和关注历史的人才会了解。
汉朝初立时，中国的领土面积仅约 200 万平方公里，但到了鼎盛时期，汉朝将其疆域扩展到了约 600 万至 650 万平方公里。
其疆域曾拓展至今越南、朝鲜半岛、蒙古和中亚地区。
我认为汉朝 > 罗马（当然，两者间的差距并不明显）。
在我看来，鼎盛时期的汉朝是当时最强大的帝国。
最强的骑兵 + 最强的弓弩手 + 军国主义 + 定居文明的组织与资源——这些都是我得出此结论的理由。
游牧部落（匈奴）虽拥有大量优秀骑兵，但在组织体系和经济实力方面，注定无法与定居文明相提并论。
罗马帝国拥有出色的步兵军团，但在骑兵和弓弩手方面，则完全落后于汉朝。目前来看，罗马的最大优势可能仅在于其普通士兵的盔甲较为精良；



Han infantry generally used long swords, while Romans habitually used short swords. If the two sides met directly on a flat battlefield, Rome would have little chance of winning.
I won't compare cavalry and archers, as this is where the biggest gap between Rome and China . During its peak, the Han possessed well-developed heavy and light cavalry units, while Rome, during the same period, primarily relied on infantry legions.
The most classic war of the Han dynasty was the century-long war against the xiongnu. At its peak, the xiongnu had about 200,000-300,000 cavalry. Ultimately, the Chinese, through several expeditions into the grasslands and invasions of the core heartland of the grasslands, completely defeated the xiongnu. The Southern xiongnu submitted to China, and their descendants became Chinese, while the Northern xiongnu fled to the west, and Attila was their descendant (this has been confirmed by current genetic testing).

汉朝步兵普遍使用长刀，而罗马则习惯使用短剑。如果双方在平坦战场正面交锋，罗马几乎没有获胜的可能。
我不会去比较骑兵和弓弩手，因为这是罗马与中国之间差距最大的地方。汉朝在其巅峰时期，拥有高度发达的重型与轻型骑兵部队，而同时期的罗马则主要依赖步兵军团。
汉朝最经典的战争，是与匈奴长达百年的征战。巅峰时期匈奴拥有约 20 万至 30 万骑兵。最终，汉人通过多次深入草原远征、攻入草原核心地带，彻底击败了匈奴。南匈奴归附中原，其后裔融入汉族，而北匈奴则西逃，阿提拉便是其后代（这一点已被当代基因检测证实）。

William Osborn · Dec 16
We have no way of knowing who would have won in a military contest between Romans and Han Chinese.
But although Rome relied on infantry, it also employed excellent cavalry from allies (for example: Numidian, Gallic, and Germanic horsemen) whenever Rome needed cavalry contingents. And the Romans defeated a variety of cavalry-heavy nations throughout its history: Carthaginians, Parthians, Huns, etc.
The point about the Han having an advantage by using longer swords than the Romans is irrelevant. The short-sword Roman infantry customarily beat adversaries who used very long swords (e.g., Gauls, Germans, etc.). And Roman cavalry wielded long swords called “spatha.”

我们无从得知若罗马与汉朝交战，究竟哪一方能胜出。
但尽管罗马依赖步兵，它在需要骑兵部队时也会利用盟友的优秀骑兵（例如：努米底亚、高卢和日耳曼骑手）。罗马在其历史上击败过多种以骑兵为主的国家：迦太基人、帕提亚人、匈奴人等。
关于汉朝因使用比罗马更长的剑而具有优势的观点无关紧要。使用短剑的罗马步兵通常能战胜使用极长剑的对手（例如高卢人、日耳曼人等）。而罗马骑兵则使用称为“斯帕达”的长剑。

Jason Wu· Tue
The nomadic tribes you mentioned were not as powerful as the xiongnu at their peak. The Han alone possessed 150,000 to 200,000 cavalry, in addition to auxiliary cavalry from groups like the xiongnu and xianbei.

你所提到的游牧部落在其鼎盛时期都不及匈奴强大。仅汉朝就拥有 15 万到 20 万骑兵，此外还有来自匈奴、鲜卑等族的辅助骑兵。

Fontaine· Dec 16
Even at its peak, Attila's army in Europe only numbered between 50,000 and 100,000 men.
The xiongnu/Huns reached their peak during the Han Dynasty, possessing a cavalry force of 200,000 to 300,000 men and exhibiting characteristics of a centralized state. This is a completely different concept from the nomadic tribes that the Romans faced.

即使在其鼎盛时期，阿提拉（匈人帝国领袖）在欧洲的军队人数也仅在 5 万至 10 万之间。
匈奴在其巅峰时期面对汉朝时拥有 20 至 30 万骑兵，并表现出中央集权国家的特征。这与罗马所面对的游牧部落是完全不同的概念。

PrimeChaosVC· Dec 16
The latest archaeological findings from recent years have revealed new insights. What were first regarded as double-edged long swords have turned out to be sword staffs, measuring three to four meters in length. These were used by heavily armored infantry per unit—no fewer than 500 men—in a tight phalanx formation, forming the core of the army.
Their primary weapon was a mixture of the ji (a polearm with a hooked blade and spearhead) and these long sword staffs. Supporting them were skirmishers, lightly armored with bows or crossbows, constituting around 20 percent of the force. Their crossbow bolts were mass-produced with a remarkable 0.01 margin of error and were aerodynamically designed, similar in principle to modern bullets.
This was the Qin army, which predated the Han Dynasty.
As for the cavalry used by the Romans: while they may have been among the best in their region, they were incomparable to the xiongnu.

近年来的最新考古发现揭示了新认知。最初被认为是双刃长剑的武器实为长达三四米的剑杖。这些由重甲步兵以单位——每单位不少于 500 人——密集方阵使用，构成了军队的核心。
他们主要的武器是戟（带钩刃和矛头的长柄武器）和长剑杖的混合体。支援他们的是散兵，他们轻装上阵，配备弓或弩，约占部队的 20%。他们的弩箭大规模生产，误差仅为 0.01，且符合空气动力学设计，原理类似于现代子弹。
这是早于汉朝的秦朝军队。
至于罗马人使用的骑兵：虽然他们可能是其区域内的佼佼者，但与匈奴相比则相形见绌。

Edward S.· Dec 16
I get the impression the art of war was more developed in ancient China than elsewhere.
And the Romans were often defeated by their own neighbors, in individual battles and campaigns.
But I think the Romans would have given their Chinese contemporaries a harder time than other peoples.
The first was the Roman practice, when legions were destroyed, of just raising more legions.
The second was an ability to learn from their opponents and adapt their methods or to their methods.
They were sort of the Red Army of the ancient world.

中国古代的兵法艺术似乎比其他国家更为发达。
而且罗马人常在单场战役和一连串战役中，被自己的邻邦击败。
但我认为，罗马人会给同时期的中国造成比其他民族更大的困难。
首先是罗马的惯例，当军团被摧毁后，他们能迅速组建更多军团。
其次是他们能够从对手那里学习，并适应或采纳对手的战术。
他们是古代世界的红军。

Francesco Qian· Fri
Right, just as the Romans are a sort of Red Army of the time, the Han are like the American army that relied on high production and logistics that could easily replace losses and they hit the enemy with showers of arrows similar to the American carpet bombing, then also the Han are very good at adapting in wars such as to fight the xiongnu knowing that their advantage is the cavalry so the Han formed a powerful cavalry to fight the xiongnu that reached hundreds of thousands of units and to conquer Vietnam the Han army also adapted to the climate and the territory of that place.

正是，正如罗马人可视为当时的红军，汉朝则像美军那样依靠高效的生产和后勤体系，能够轻易补充损失，并且他们以密集箭雨打击敌人，类似于美军的饱和轰炸。同时，汉朝在战争中展现出极强的适应能力，比如对抗匈奴时意识到对手的优势在于骑兵，因此建立了数量达数十万之众的强大骑兵部队来应对；在征服越南时，汉军也适应了当地的气候与地形条件。

PC Yu Follow
Who dominates the world since 19th century? Europeans+Americans. In short, the West.
Who has the pen then? The West.
Where is Rome? Europe. The West.
The West writes about the West incl Rome. The West hardly knows anything about China. Needless to say Han dynasty.

自 19 世纪以来，谁主导着世界？欧洲人+美国人。简而言之，西方。
那么，书写历史的执笔者是谁？是西方。
罗马在哪里？欧洲，西方。
西方著书立说多聚焦于西方，包括罗马。西方对中国知之甚少，更不用说汉朝了。

Adrian Qiu(秋霞) Dec 16
At that time, the territory was internally unified, and the imperial court's jurisdiction extended to every corner of its land. Approximately one out of every ten households supplied a professional military family. During the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, the population of China stood at 36 million.
Although the population of the Roman Empire at its peak was roughly comparable to that of Han China, its administrative capacity was far inferior. The Roman Empire exercised very weak control over its various provinces and was unable to raise such a large military force.
This resulted in the standing army of the Han Dynasty numbering approximately 600,000 to 800,000 troops, whereas the standing army of the Roman Empire, even at its peak, only had a strength of 400,000 to 450,000 troops.
In terms of technology, the Han Dynasty already widely adopted blast furnaces for iron smelting, thus producing liquid iron for casting. This allowed iron implements to be extensively used not only in the military but also in civilian applications. Han Dynasty blast furnace iron smelting sites have been widely discovered in Henan, Jiangsu, Beijing and even xinjiang in China.

当时中国领土统一，汉朝廷管辖着每一寸土地。平均每十户就有一户是提供兵员的专业军户。汉朝汉武帝时代，中国的人口是 3600 万。
罗马帝国的人口在鼎盛时期与汉朝大致相当，但其行政能力远不及汉朝。罗马帝国对其各省的控制非常薄弱，无法征召如此庞大的军队。
这导致汉朝常备军数量约在 60 万到 80 万之间，而罗马帝国的常备军，即使在巅峰时期，兵力也只有 40 万到 45 万。
从技术方面来看，汉朝已经广泛采用高炉炼铁，从而生产出用于铸造的生铁。这使得铁器不仅在军事上得到广泛应用，在民用领域也是如此。中国河南、江苏、北京甚至新疆都广泛发现了汉朝高炉炼铁遗址。

In contrast, the Romans could only produce sponge iron through low-temperature smelting, which required repeated forging to remove impurities. This method was highly inefficient, and iron tools were only available to a small number of regular troops. Their metalworking technology was inferior to that of the Han Dynasty, which also meant a huge gap in military capabilities.
You fail to understand the Han Dynasty simply because you are Eurocentric, educated in Western history, which breeds your bias. Especially in Europe, there is a mindset where every country claims to be a descendant of Rome, since the real Rome was gone. China, however, is a different story. It is an unbroken civilization that was even larger than the Roman Empire which not collapsed, and neighboring countries can only claim to be partakers of Chinese culture rather than the legitimate heirs of it.
This difference makes it hard for you to truly engage with ancient Chinese civilization, and this stems from a matter of subjective mindset rather than obxtive fact.

相比之下，罗马人只能通过低温冶炼生产海绵铁，这需要反复锻打以去除杂质。这种方法效率极低，铁制工具仅供少数正规部队使用。他们的金属加工技术远不如汉朝，这也意味着军事能力上存在巨大差距。
你之所以不理解汉朝，是因为你的思维以欧洲为中心，接受了西方历史教育，这滋生了你的偏见。特别是在欧洲，由于真正的罗马已经消亡，每个国家都自诩为罗马的后裔。然而，中国的情况则不同。它是一个未曾中断的文明，其规模甚至超过了未曾崩溃的罗马帝国，邻国只能声称自己是中国文化的参与者，而非其合法继承者。
这种差异使得你难以真正理解中国古代文明，这源于主观心态的问题，而非客观事实。

凛冬将至 Follow
The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were Eastern and Western empires existing roughly during the same period, within a margin of plus or minus 150 years. Since Chinese dynasties usually last about 250 to 300 years, a larger time gap would make comparison meaningless. Therefore, they certainly have significant comparative value!
The Han Dynasty had about 300000 to 500000 infantry and at least 120000 to 200000 cavalry, along with crossbows that had a range of 200 to 300 meters! The track record of this army includes 2 to 3 major expeditions that completely destroyed the xiongnu Empire, a nomadic power with 300000 cavalry!
The military force of the xiongnu Empire was more than 3 times that of the Huns in Europe. While the Huns were referred to as a natural disaster in Europe, the Roman Empire was completely helpless against them and never organized an expeditionary force to launch a long distance campaign against them!
By contrast, the Han cavalry legions that crushed the xiongnu were undoubtedly far more terrifying than the Huns! Furthermore, the Han army was highly skilled in siege warfare. The Roman Navy certainly could not fly to Han territory! Is it not obvious at a glance who was more powerful?

汉朝与罗马帝国作为东西方两大帝国，存续时间大致重叠，误差不超过 150 年。鉴于中国王朝通常持续约 250 至 300 年，时间差距过大会使比较失去意义。因此，二者无疑具有重要的比较价值！
汉朝拥有约 30 万到 50 万步兵和至少 12 万到 20 万骑兵，并配备了射程达 200 到 300 米的弩！这支军队的战绩包括二到三次大规模远征，彻底摧毁了拥有 30 万骑兵的游牧势力——匈奴帝国！
匈奴帝国的军事力量是欧洲匈奴人的三倍以上。虽然匈奴人在欧洲被视为天灾，但罗马帝国完全无法对抗他们，从未组织远征军对其实施长途征战！
相比之下，击溃匈奴的汉朝骑兵军团无疑比匈奴人更为恐怖！此外，汉军擅长攻城战。罗马海军显然不可能飞到汉朝领土！谁的战斗力更强，不是一目了然吗？

Stephen Richards Follow
In terms of numbers, it was strong. For example, in the battle that led to the dynasty’s formation, the Han army had around 300,000 soldiers.
There are natural similarities with Roman armies—trying to expand territory while also trying to subdue ‘barbarian’ tribes.
It is not less well-known in China. Battles (like the Battle of Red Cliffs) and military figures like Liu Bei and Cao Cao are very well known. The general Guan Yu is even worshipped as a god (the one with a red face and carrying a halberd). When my daughter was applying for a spot in a Hong Kong secondary school, one of the interview questions was ‘What character from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (a classic novel about military conflict during the late Han Dynasty) do you identify most with?’
History education in Western countries tends to ignore or, at best, gloss over Chinese history.

从数量上看，汉朝军力确实强大。例如，在奠定王朝根基的关键战役中，汉军曾集结约三十万兵力。
汉军自然与罗马军队有着相似之处——他们都在努力扩张领土，同时试图征服“蛮族”部落。
在中国，这并非鲜为人知。诸如赤壁之战这类战役，以及刘备、曹操等军事人物都广为人知。关羽将军甚至被尊奉为神（那位红脸手持长柄大刀的神明）。当我女儿申请香港（特区）一所中学的入学资格时，面试问题之一是“《三国演义》（一部讲述汉末军事冲突的经典小说）中，你最认同哪个角色？”
西方国家的历史教育倾向于忽视或者最多是轻描淡写地提及中国历史。

JohnJiang Follow
Fame... that's a topic only amateurs discuss...
China wasn't officially surpassed by the West until the mid-Ming For most of its history, China was one of the most advanced regions in the world, and being more advanced than the West was the norm...
The cavalry and archers of the han were more powerful than those of Rome, and that basically determined the outcome of battles, my friend.

名气…那是只有业余爱好者才会讨论的话题…
中国直到明代中期才被西方正式超越。在历史长河中，中国长期位列世界最发达地区之一，超越西方曾是常态…
汉朝的骑兵与弓箭手力量强于罗马，这基本决定了战局的走向，朋友。

Freddie Chen Follow
Why is it often compared to the Roman, yet it is far less well-known?
Because that the West controls discourse right and mass of the narration is based on the West angle of view.
Like why Far East, Middle East, Near East is those names. Because that is based on the distance and direction from the West.
What was the level of military strength of the Han dynasty China?
Very strong, very very.  
"Nations usually fall when weak, but the Han fell while strong!"
Even after Eastern Han perished, the splitted war lords could still easily defeated surrounded normed tribes and barbarians.
For military tech, Han also lead. For example, In Western Han period, the stirrups were widely used.

为何它常与罗马相提并论，却远不及后者广为人知？
因为西方掌控着话语权，而大部分叙述都是从西方视角出发的。
就像为什么远东、中东、近东被称为那些名字一样。这是因为它们是根据与西方的距离和方位来命名的。
中国汉朝的军事力量水平如何？
非常强大，非常非常强大。
“国恒以弱灭，而汉独以强亡”
即使东汉灭亡后，分裂的军阀们仍能轻易击败四周的游牧部落与蛮族。
军事技术方面，汉朝也处于领先地位。例如在西汉时期，马镫已被广泛使用。

H.F.FANG Follow
Han is far less well-known？Please allow me to modify your question here. Why is it often compared to the Roman, yet it is far less well-known in the West?
Because in Western countries, teachers didn’t teach…..
As for military strength, as early as the Warring States period, 500 years before Han Dynasty, China had already begun coordinating chariots, cavalry, infantry, and crossbow units in battle,with wars involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Han dynasty just mobilized over a hundred thousands cavalry in its battles against Huns. The scale was far smaller than that of Warring States periods( 475–211 BCE).
Now the question arises: Was Rome’s military strength as strong as that of the Han Dynasty？How large were their wars？How many types of troops coordinating in their battles？Teachers didn't teach it in China also…..
The Battle of Changping in 260 BC, involved nearly one million troops. The war clearly demonstrated the coordination of large-scale legions.

汉朝远没有那么出名吗？请允许我在这里修改你的问题。为何常将其与罗马帝国相提并论，虽然它在西方远没有那么有名？
因为在西方国家，老师没有教过…
早在战国时期，即汉代之前 500 年，中国在战场上就已经开始协调战车、骑兵、步兵和弩兵统筹作战，战争涉及数十万士兵。汉代在对抗匈奴的战役中仅调动了十余万骑兵。其规模远小于战国时期（公元前 475 年至公元前 211 年）。
现在问题来了：罗马的军事实力是否与汉朝一样强大？他们的战争规模有多大？在他们的战斗中协调了多少种部队？中国的老师也没有教过这些…
公元前 260 年的长平之战，参战人数近百万。这场战争清晰地展示了大规模军团的协调作战能力。

Blue Sky Follow
The fall of Rome was a humiliating, prolonged and tortuous process: starting from the Crisis of the Third Century, it underwent a nearly 300-year gradual decline, much like a person afflicted with cancer.
Note that what I refer to is Ancient Rome—the Rome spanning from the Republican era to the Imperial era—not the Byzantine Empire that had been influenced by Muslim cultures.
Many foreigners like to draw parallels between Rome and China’s Han Dynasty, and the reason is simple: these two ancient empires were the only two superpowers on the planet back then. They had comparable populations, excelled at military expansion, boasted splendid cultures, and both served as the spiritual cornerstones of their respective successor nations. Therefore, it is only natural for them to be compared. To most Chinese people, the Roman Empire was indeed powerful, but it could only be regarded as the second-best of its time. This is because the adversaries Rome faced were generally weaker than itself. Most importantly, the collapse of the Han Dynasty was caused by internal division, whereas the fall of Rome was a result of foreign invasions.

罗马的衰落是一个屈辱、漫长而痛苦的过程：从公元3世纪的危机开始，经历了近 300 年的逐渐衰落，就像一个人得了癌症一样。
需要注意的是，我指的是古罗马——从共和时代到帝国时代的罗马——而不是受穆斯林文化影响的拜占庭帝国。
许多外国人喜欢把罗马和中国汉朝相提并论，原因很简单：这两个古老帝国是当时世界上仅有的两个超级大国。他们拥有相当的人口，擅长军事扩张，拥有辉煌的文化，并且都成为各自继承国的精神基石。因此，比较它们是很自然的。对大多数中国人来说，罗马帝国确实很强大，但它只能是当时的次强。这是因为罗马所面临的对手普遍比它自己弱。最重要的是，汉朝的崩溃是由内部部分裂造成的，而罗马的灭亡是外敌入侵的结果。

Goodi Shang Follow
Many Chinese people consider Vietnam a brotherly country. In reality, Vietnam is not a brother, but more like a beggar and a swindler.
Vietnam is always trying to extract benefits from China through various means, never offering anything in return.
Vietnam is clearly begging from China, yet claims it's mutual assistance between brothers. This behavior is laughable.
Vietnam has never helped China once; their selfish and greedy demands are like those of a parasite.

很多中国人将越南视为兄弟国家。但实际上，越南并非兄弟之国，更像是一个乞丐和骗子。
越南总是想方设法从中国获取利益，却从未给予任何回报。
越南分明是在向中国乞讨，却声称这是兄弟间的相互援助，这般行径实在可笑。
越南从未帮助过中国一次；他们自私贪婪的要求如同寄生虫一般。

Ho Jun Shin Follow
The Han dynasty possessed one of the most formidable military systems of the ancient world, comparable in scale to Rome. However, its campaigns in Northeast Asia—particularly against Wiman Joseon and other steppe–forest polities—revealed clear strategic limits. Archaeological evidence from cultures such as xiajiadian Upper shows that early Northeast Asia sustained indigenous military traditions capable of resisting imperial expansion. The relative obscurity of these histories today reflects modern historiographical framing rather than ancient realities.

汉朝拥有古代世界最强大的军事体系之一，其规模可与罗马相媲美。然而，其在东北亚的战役——尤其是对卫满朝鲜及其他草原-森林政权的征战——揭示了明确的战略局限。来自夏家店上层文化等考古证据表明，早期东北亚保持着能够抵抗汉帝国扩张的本土军事势力。这些历史在当今的相对鲜为人知，反映的是现代史学的叙事框架，而非古代的现实状况。