If China and Rome had fought, who would have won?

如果中国和罗马开战，谁会赢？

以下是Quora网友的评价：

Sanatan Dharma

China had the experience of fighting nomadic horsemen for more than 2000 years since it’s located right next to Mongolia. If the Romans struggled against a bunch of tribal farmers in Germania, the nomadic tribes of Asia would’ve decimated their armies long before they could fight the Chinese.

中国毗邻蒙古，与游牧骑兵作战已有2000多年的历史。如果罗马人在日耳曼尼亚连部落农民都难以对付，那么亚洲的游牧部落在和中国人作战之前就能把罗马人的军队给灭了。

Jerry Tan

It is difficult to say for certain who would have won if China and Rome had fought, as there are many factors that would have come into play and both empires had their own strengths and weaknesses.

In terms of army, the Roman army was known for its highly organized and disciplined tactics, as well as its specialized units such as cavalry and engineers. The Roman legionaries were also well-trained and equipped with high-quality weapons and armor. The Roman army also had a good logistics system that allowed them to maintain large standing armies and sustain long campaigns. On the other hand, the Chinese army was known for its large numbers, advanced siege warfare tactics and conscription system which allowed them to mobilize large numbers of soldiers.

如果中国和罗马开战，谁赢谁输很难说，因为影响结果的因素有很多，这两个帝国都有自己的长处和弱点。

在军队方面，罗马军队以高度组织化和纪律严明的战术以及骑兵和工兵等专业部队而闻名。罗马军团训练有素，装备着高质量的武器和盔甲。罗马军队还拥有良好的后勤系统，有能力维持庞大的常备军规模和持久战。另一方面，中国军队以其庞大的兵力，先进的攻城战术和征兵制度而闻名，这使得他们能够动员大量的士兵。

In terms of economy, the Roman economy was based on slavery, while the Chinese economy was based on agriculture and trade. The Roman economy was more advanced than most other ancient economies, but the Chinese economy was also quite advanced for its time. The Roman economy was able to support their large standing army, but the Chinese economy, which was based on agriculture and trade, would have been able to sustain a longer campaign.

In terms of tactics, the Roman army was known for its flexbility and adaptability, while the Chinese army was known for its advanced siege warfare tactics. The Roman army was able to adapt to different situations and environments and were known for their strategy, while the Chinese army had a good understanding of their enemies and were able to come up with a strategy that would fit the situation they were in.

在经济上，罗马经济以奴隶制为基础，而中国经济以农业和贸易为基础。罗马经济比其他大多数古代经济都要先进，但中国经济在当时也相当先进。罗马的经济能够支撑他们庞大的常备军规模，但以农业和贸易为基础的中国经济则能够维持更长的作战时间。

在战术上，罗马军队十分灵活、适应力强，中国军队则拥有先进的攻城战术。罗马军队能够适应不同的情况和环境，具有很强的作战战术，而中国军队对敌人知己知彼，总能想出适合的战术。

In terms of equipment, the Roman army was equipped with high-quality weapons and armor such as the gladius and the scutum, while the Chinese army was equipped with advanced siege weapons such as battering rams and siege towers.

It is hard to say which empire would have had the upper hand in a hypothetical battle, as both empires had their own strengths and weaknesses. The Roman army's discipline, tactics, and strategy would have been a formidable match for the Chinese army's numbers and siege tactics. However, the Chinese economy, which was based on agriculture and trade, would have been able to sustain a longer campaign than the Roman economy.

在装备上，罗马军队装备了高质量的武器和盔甲，如角斗士和盾甲，而中国军队装备了先进的攻城武器，如攻城锤和攻城塔。

很难说究竟哪个帝国会在这场假想的战争中占据上风，因为两个帝国都有各自的长处和短处。罗马军队的纪律、战术和战略对中国军队的人数和攻城战术来说，会是非常强大的对手。但以农业和贸易为基础的中国经济能够比罗马经济维持更长时间的战役。

It is important to note that the two empires never fought against each other and any speculation about the outcome of such a hypothetical battle would be just an educated guess.

这两个帝国从未打过仗，对这种假想战争结果的猜测都只是有根据的猜测。

Simba iong

Han would have won easily. Han fight mongols and won. Rome fight barbarians that are not even advanced and lost. After Han beats iongnu empire, A small fraction of their people migrated West and destroyed Rome easily.

中国可以很轻松地打败罗马。汉人打败了蒙古人并取得了胜利。罗马人的对手只是落后的野蛮人。汉人打败匈奴帝国后，一小部分匈奴人向西迁移，轻松地摧毁了罗马。

Frosty Shoat

The Parthians will not agree with the premise…

And their cataphracts will not agree with the idea “only Romans have heavily-armored soldiers” claimed by certain Roman fanboys here.

帕提亚人不会同意你这个假设的…

他们也不会同意某些罗马迷所说的"只有罗马人才有全副武装的士兵"的观点。

Peter Barosso

The Romans would win hands down. Look what Alexander did to persia.…China would have been similar to persia. Massed infantry of poor quality, generally poor armor protection. Limited artillery, mediocre training and zero professionalism as a military force.

The Romans had much more metal production. Why do you think the Chinese used paper money? The Roman's doubled the iron production and quadrupled the copper production.

罗马人可以轻松获胜。看看亚历山大对波斯做过什么吧。中国的下场可能和波斯差不多。大批步兵素质差，装甲保护较差，火炮不多，缺乏训练，更不具备专业的军事力量。

罗马人的金属产量更高。不然你觉得中国人为什么会使用纸币？罗马人的铁产量比中国多一倍，铜产量多四倍。

Their troops would have had much better training and technology….like the pilum which penetrated shields and killed the bearer…this one technology in itself would have given them an edge as the Chinese front lines would have collapsed and subsequent ranks would be encumbered with dead and dying and wounded comrades before the two forces even started hand to hand, which the romans would have slaughtered them with their training.

“remember your training" is what every centurion would have been shouting as the Chinese would be trying to figure out how to retreat.

罗马军队的训练和技术更有优势....这一技术本身就能给他们带来优势，因为中国的前线快速崩溃，大部队会被战死、濒死和受伤的战友所拖累，甚至在两支军队展开肉搏战之前，罗马人就会用他们的训练成果屠杀对手。

每个百夫长都会高喊“牢记你学过的本领”，因为中国人会伺机撤退。

Roman scorpions and balistae would be picking off and skewering or impaling two or three men at a time in the middle of the infantry formations.

Finally as the Chinese run away from the Roman slow moving bull dozer, cavalry would cut them down and the Chinese general would be captured and paraded in the Roman forum.

罗马的蝎形弩和弹道枪可以在步兵阵型中一次刺穿或刺穿两三个人。

最后，当中国士兵纷纷溃逃时，罗马骑兵会把他们砍倒，俘虏中国将军并在罗马广场上示众游行。

Adam Wu

In an invasion scenario? The aggressor loses. The logistical advantage from being the defender is too great for either side’s level of technology or power to overcome.

On neutral ground somewhere in between their two Empires where the logistical chains balance out exactly? The winner would be whoever the Parthians wanted to win, because they controlled that territory and can tip the scales in favour of whoever they wanted by allying their own forces with that side?

在入侵的情况下吗？侵略者会战败。任何一个防守方的后勤优势是双方的作战水平或作战实力都无法克服的。

在两个帝国之间的中立地带，后勤链会相互制衡吗？帕提亚人想赢谁就赢谁，因为他们控制了那片领土，可以通过与对方结盟来扭转局势。

I would give the Romans somewhat increased odds of wng the majority of the battles and small skirmishes and inflicting more total casualties, due to their highly capable professional armies (whereas Han China relied much more heavily on militia forces), but Han China would have somewhat increased odds of wng a long term war of attrition, since they consistently fielded bigger armies (even when potential exaggeration by contemporary sources are taken into account) and their governmental and social structure was more capable of absorbing military losses and raising new armies, and a significant chunk of their military doctrine was of the “use as many men as it takes to achieve the objective. Don’t worry, there are plenty more soldiers where those came from” variety. (Whereas Imperial Rome always had to devote a significant fraction of their total military force to garrisoning their empire and significant setbacks on any farflung foreign front often triggered uprisings in the provinces that they had to constantly be aware of and deal with).

我认为罗马人赢得大多数战斗和小规模冲突的几率较大，也能造成更大的伤亡，因为他们有能力很强的职业军队(而汉朝更依赖民兵部队)。

但汉朝赢得持久战的几率较高，因为他们的军队规模更大，他们的政府和社会结构更有能力弥补军事损失、组建新的军队，他们的军事学说的一个重要部分是“尽可能运用兵力优势来实现目标”。

别担心，还有更多的士兵来自“多样化”。罗马帝国长期需要将军事力量的很大一部分投入到帝国的驻军中，而远方战线上的重大失利往往会引发各省的起义，他们必须不断应对这些起义

Jim Fitzpatrick

The ancient Chinese used the trebuchet, not introduced to Europe until the 12th century, with far greater range and mobility than the Roman catapult. They used a variety of crossbows with significantly greater range than the Roman bow; very large bows fixed to platforms, as well as one man, and two man crossbows. Discipline and training were severe. Cao cao trained Special Forces for eight years, preparing them for battle. China is generally recognized as the wellspring of martial arts.

中国古代使用的投石机，直到12世纪才被引入欧洲，其射程和机动性都比罗马的投石机大得多。中国人使用各种各样的弩，射程也比罗马弓大得多：有固定在平台上的巨型弓，也有单人和双人弩。中国军队的纪律和训练都很严格。曹操训练特种部队达八年之久，以备作战之需。中国被世人认为是武术的发源地。

By the fourth century, Chinese soldiers were fully armored, with fully armored horses, and they had stirrups, a tremendous advantage for cavalry. Extensive experience of military tactics evolved over many centuries, knowledge of meteorology, cartography, precise measurement of distances, efficiencies in raising and feeding troops, use of incendiaries and toxns, toxc hot air balloons and kites, and psychological warfare were all employed.

The turtle formation was familiar to the ancient Chinese and they had effective methods to dismantle it without throwing horses and men into it.

I’m not saying Africanus or Julius Caesar couldn’t have kicked ass at some point. Success involves luck, timing, morale, and the right people at the right time, but from many of the posts here, there is a general lack of knowledge of ancient China’s sophistication in warfare.

公元四世纪，中国士兵就已经全副武装，骑着全副武装的马，他们有马镫，这对骑兵来说是一个巨大的优势。许多世纪以来积累的丰富的军事战术经验、气象学知识、制图学知识、精确的距离测量、后勤补给的效率、燃烧弹和毒素的使用、有毒的热气球和风筝，以及心理战都得到了运用。

古代中国人很熟悉盾龟阵形，他们有高效的破阵方法，无需投入士兵和战马。

我并不是说阿菲利加努斯或者凯撒大帝不行。战事的成功包括运气、时机、士气，以及天时地利人和的因素，但从很多跟帖的内容来看，大家对古代中国的战争艺术普遍缺乏了解。

Christopher Archer

It already happened remotely. China fended off its northern enemies:the barbarian steppe tribes who migrated westward. The Huns under Attila were the culmination of this mass dominoes effect heading into Europe. Ultimately from the outside this led to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire. Bet you didn’t read that anywhere. It started with China. Just look at the map.

历史上确实发生过的。中国击退了北方的敌人：向西迁移的草原蛮族部落。在匈奴大帝的统治下，匈奴人是进入欧洲的多米诺骨牌的触发点，最终导致了西罗马帝国的灭亡。你肯定不知道这个史实吧。实际上这始于中国，看看地图就知道了。

Peter Bota

Simple. The Asian contributors believe that the Han would win while the Europeans believe the Romans would win. This kinda indicates that it is rather close.

Essentially, it would be up to the gods and Fate.

很简单。亚洲人认为中国人会赢，而欧洲人则认为罗马人会赢。这说明双方势均力敌。

归根结底，这将取决于神和命运。

Anonymous

If they fought in Rome, Roman would win. They they fought in China, China would win. In places other than China and Rome, if they fought close to the Mediterranean or for a short time and a small goal, Roman would win. Otherwise, China would win. But of course, during Rome empire’s glory years, Chinese can only maintain a tiny army in Kazakhstan. To my knowledge, Roman empire even failed to conquer Germania. There is no way they could wage real war against each other.

And for those who says Roman weapon was better than Chinese weapon 200BC ~ 200AD. I really don’t think so. Was German tiger tank better than T34. 1 on 1, may be, in a real war, no.

如果他们在罗马作战，罗马人会赢。如果他们在中国打仗，中国会赢。如果他们在地中海附近作战，或者战斗时间短，目标小，罗马人有可能获胜。反之，中国可能会赢。当然，在罗马帝国的辉煌时期，中国人只能在哈萨克斯坦维持一支很小的军队。而据我所知，罗马帝国甚至没能征服日耳曼尼亚。他们不可能对彼此发动真正的战争。

对于那些嚷嚷着公元前200 ~公元200年，罗马武器胜过中国武器的人来说，我对此是不认可的。德国虎式坦克比T34好吗？单挑或许是这样，但在真正的战争中，并非如此。