評論：
I would say Romans will lose . Just cuz they got nice formations does not mean they got better weapons. We all never seen Romans fighting Han China. So it must be called a match.
But for saying, I vote for China.
漢朝完勝。
當然羅馬軍團紀律性很強，但不敵漢軍的火箭和火牛車。羅馬人先是生平第一次看見焰火，然後便四散而逃。雙方騎兵同時向對方衝鋒（漢朝士兵的盔甲很普通，但是也有著覆蓋全身的鐵質盔甲的精銳，相反羅馬只有軍團制式盔甲，有些甚至只穿皮甲）。中世紀的中國擁有一支強大的軍隊。
羅馬會輸，陣型漂亮不代表裝備精良。當然我們永遠不會看到雙方真正的戰爭，這隻能算是某一方面的比賽。
要不怎麼說我會投票給中國呢。
#8.
Actually, the better battle that illustrates Roman Cavalry weakness is Carrae.
40,000 Roma Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. Point could be said that the Roman commander, Crassus was inept.
實際上卡萊之戰更能證明騎兵是羅馬的弱勢。4萬羅馬軍團士兵，對陣帕提亞1萬騎射和1萬重裝騎兵，羅馬潰敗。克拉蘇作為指揮官實在不給力。
克拉蘇(Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives，公元前115年～前53年)，古羅馬軍事家、政治家。他曾幫助蘇拉在內戰中奪權建立獨裁統治。他通過奴隸貿易，經營礦產，投機地產買賣，及非法奪取其他人的財產等手段積攢萬貫家財。前72年至前71年期間，斯巴達克率奴隸爆發起義，克拉蘇帶領羅馬軍隊殘酷鎮壓。蘇拉隱退後，他和龐培、凱撒合作，組成三頭政治同盟。 此後他因嫉妒愷撒在高盧所取得的戰功，於公元前53年發動了對安息帝國的戰爭，在卡萊戰役中全軍覆沒，本人也被安息帝國俘虜。 傳說安息人是用熔化的黃金灌進他的喉嚨裡，將他殺死的。
#9.
Both the Romans and Chinese had very good artillery (catapults and ballistas). Romans had superior infantry, especiall heavy infantry, though the Chinese had better missile troops (are you sure that Roman bows outranged Chinese crossbows? Also, Chinese crossbows had a faster rate of fire than European ones of the Middle Ages).
I still think the decisive factor here is cavalry, for cavlary have proved for centuries to be the bane of heavy infantry. Also, the Chinese could field armies of a million troops, while the Romans at their height had 250,000 legionaires and a equal number of auxiliaries.
雙方遠程機械部隊都很強（都裝備了弩炮和投石器）。羅馬步兵，特別是重裝步兵更強，同時中國弩兵更勝一籌（有人確定羅馬弓箭射程超過中國的弩嗎？雖然我知道和歐洲相比中國的弩擁有更快的射速）
我也覺得騎兵是決定性因素，千百年來已經證明了騎兵是重裝步兵的噩夢。而且中國可以把百萬軍隊投入戰場，羅馬軍團在巔峰時期也不過只有25萬人，而且很大一部分是輔助部隊。
Don*t they use a line of pikemen infront of musketeers in the 15th 16th (or whatever) centuries to protect the musketeers from cavalry charges? That is, until the bayonet was invented.
在15、16世紀（誰知道呢），不是用一排長矛兵保護身後的滑膛槍手的嗎？直到刺刀出現。
#56.Re:#55.
That was used in Europe. The Dutch also developed a tactic using a combination of a sort of mobile phalanx like formation for their pikeman with companies of musketeers. The musketeers would fire at the enemy from a range, while the formations of pikeman would close in on the enemy once the enemy gets within close range.
那是曾經的歐洲，德國佬還發明瞭一種戰術，讓長矛兵和滑膛槍手組成一種運動陣型，距離適中時滑膛槍手射擊，一旦敵人接近，長矛兵就上去一陣亂捅。
#57.Re:#12.
Gunpowder was invented during the eastern Han dynasty. But, it was only used as fireworks. The first time it was used in battles was during the Song dynasty.
火藥在東漢就發明了，不過只是用於煙火，首次用於軍事是宋朝時發生的。
#58.
I think Rome may have superior training and discipline for its troops. It also has contacted many other parts of the world. China, on the other hand, has fewer contact with other nations.
我認為羅馬軍隊的訓練和士氣更佳，而且和世界其他地區的接觸也更廣泛。反觀中國，幾乎不怎麼和其他國家接觸。
#59.
the rome and the hans all shall one enemy: the Huns. from what i*ve learned, the huns almost destoried the rome while the hans have managed to keep them out of its boarder.
羅馬和漢朝有一個共同的敵人：匈族人。反正我是這麼學的：被漢朝趕跑的匈族人毀滅了羅馬。（正如前文所說，我個人認為不應該把漢朝與羅馬的實力對比簡單地歸結的到一個剪刀石頭布的模型中。）
BTW way, The Roman Gladius (gladius mean short word in latin) is a copy of the Iberian sword used by the Spanish and by Carthage.
順便說一下，羅馬短劍是仿西班牙人和迦太基人使用的伊比利亞劍而成的。
#65.
I don*t like Gladius. Too short.
不喜歡羅馬短劍，太短。
#66.Re:#65.
That why it was so deadly....
In the Gaulic wars, the Gaul had the big 3 ft sword, the Romans rushed them and with their sheild the gauls long sword became a liability. The Gauls did not have enough room to weild them.
短才致命。
在高盧戰爭中，高盧人用的是3英尺長的大劍，當羅馬人舉著盾牌衝向他們的時候，根本沒有揮舞空間的大劍毫無優勢可言。
#67.Re:#65.
yea, you like the sword of William Wallace, don*t you?
恩，你肯定喜歡《勇敢的心》裡面那樣的長劍，對吧？
#68.
I know short swords are deadly when 2 men are closed up.
But I still perfer a longsword, or better (2 handed).. .
我知道2個人面對面的時候短劍更致命。
但我還是喜歡長劍，雙手持的更好...
#69.Re:#66.
That, I know.
我也知道。
#70.
I think a shorter sword can also be swung faster
越短的劍揮舞起來越快。
#71.Re:#70.
Of course! Its light and easy to wield. Good with a shield.
當然了，因為輕便麼，配合盾使用效果很好。
#124.
Han Chinese - Missile weapons. Good cavalries, armours for every soldier, overwhelming numbers, smart and strategic generals.
Romans - Great formations and disciplane soldiers. Dunno more.
漢朝-強弩，優秀的騎兵，每個士兵裝備有盔甲，數量上的優勢，機智且有戰略眼光的將領。
羅馬-優秀的陣型，紀律性強的士兵。
#125.Re:#124.
Rome had discipline professional soldiers, career generals, and the best heavy infantry in the world at that time.
In order to beat them, the Parthians use their composite bows and refrain from closing in on them. Once the legionaries got you within melee, they will most likely have won.
羅馬有專業士兵，職業將軍，以及當時世界上最好的重步兵。
為了打敗他們，帕提亞人不得不使用複合弓來避免和他們近距離接觸。一旦重步兵和你近距離肉搏，他們就已經取得了勝利。
#126.Re:#125.
Yeah, they are soo good in fighting barbarians without good armour and with lower pop...
是啊，他們在對付赤膊上陣的沒有文化的野蠻人的時候表現得非常優秀。
#127.
this thread is still alive?! LOL
are you guys just keep stating the same things over and over again?
這貼還沒沉？！LOL
你們有完沒完？
正如這位老兄所言，下面的帖子也差不多都是相同的內容了，漢朝對羅馬基本上變成了弩兵對盾牌陣，中間還夾雜著大量的關於東西羅馬歷史的討論。有興趣的繼續看原帖吧。
有同學質疑文章是抄來的，原帖確實早有人介紹過，我也是看了那篇帖子才想到去翻譯的，大家可以去對比一下（google搜索“漢朝，羅馬”），如果說立意不是原創，那麼本文就算是一種補充與完善吧。
A good army does not depend on luck, so if it*s army is weakened by luck it will not be destroyed. A good army*s general always know where the enemy might ambush him and sends scouts forward. I think it depends mostly on the general, and there has been cases in history when an army that was outnumbered by the enemy 10 to 1 won the battle.
一支優秀的軍隊不是靠天吃飯的，即使運氣不在他這邊，也不會覆滅。好的將領往往能預測出敵人可能伏擊的位置並且派出斥候偵查大軍的行軍路線。我認為（戰爭的勝負）基本上取決於將領的能力，也有很多的例子證明以一敵十不是神話。
Some times they do.
If the Romans had 3000 legions and Han has only 100 guards in a small city.
What if the city is near a cliff, and 2999 Romans sliped and died on accident? Then its 100 on 1 . LOL
不一定。比如說，3000羅馬士兵包圍了只有100漢朝士兵守衛的小城。如果城池靠近懸崖，2999個羅馬倒黴蛋失足落入懸崖摔死了呢？然後羅馬人可就是以一敵百了。LOL
#46.
you must be insane, liberator, 2999 died of slipping of a cliff?! if the general is smart, then he might not attack the city directly but rather surround the city and wait the enemies out. the enemy would eventually run out of food and water. see, no casualties.
樓上的不正常了，2999人墜崖摔死？羅馬將軍如果夠機靈，應該圍而不攻，等漢朝軍隊渴死餓死，那就是0傷亡了。
#47.
Rome do have very formidable discipline and tactics. But they do not have monopoly of it.
In han China, crossbowmen are arrange in 3 ranks to alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank -advance). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks.
羅馬的軍紀和戰術都是令人畏懼的，但也不只是羅馬。
漢代中國，弩兵分為三個輪次交替射擊（第一輪次的射擊，最後一輪的裝箭，中間一輪的準備）。確保能形成一道連續不斷的火力網。弩兵被手持盾牌的重步兵保護著避免遭遇肉搏戰。
They make me sick too.
So we have heard about a lot of the Han equipment, what of the Romans? How will the Han formation fare against pilums thrown at them, possibly killing many? (since they wear scale armor, and assuming the Romans could get close enough to use their pilums) How about siegecraft, How will Chinese cities fare against Roman sieges and Roman cities fare against a Chinese army? I think the Chinese would have an advantage in siegecraft, I*m not sure if mongonels were invented at this time, but to my knowledge Chinese architects built siege engines very suitable and powerful for siegecraft.
武士刀我也不喜歡。
我們已經討論了一大堆漢朝的裝備了，說說羅馬的怎麼樣？當漢朝的軍陣面對羅馬特製標槍的攻擊時會發生什麼？（假設他們身穿鱗甲且已經進入標槍的射程）。雙方各自的城牆能否承受住對方攻城器的進攻？我知道漢朝在攻城器械方面有優勢，我不知道當時有沒有投石車，不過漢朝設計的攻城器械確實好用。
#85.
I thought the katana and wakibasih were Japanese. Why are we talking about them? The katana is supposed to have a molecular blade, and both Japanese swords are made with highly advance metallugury skills. The Japanese learned their metallgury skills from the Chinese, who also made very good swords, just in different styles and designs. Europe didnt* have metallgury technology until long after the Chinese started using it.
我想武士刀既然是從日本來的，我們為什麼要討論他們？武士刀就像光劍一樣鋒利，所有的日本刀都採用先進的萃取技術冶煉而成。當然，這個技術是從中國學習來的。中國人造的劍同樣出色，只不過2者的造型設計不同罷了。直到中國掌握萃取技術很久之後歐洲才學會它。
#86.Re:#84.
I think Chinese siege weapons are better. Roman balistas cannot destroy Chinese walls (If you see how think Chinese walls are).
Pilums, I heard they are very good. But how can they be strong when people use arms to throw spears?
中國的攻城器械更好，羅馬的彈射裝置奈何不了中國的城牆（只要你見過中國的城牆有多厚就明白了）。
特製標槍，聽說很好用，但是都是靠胳膊投擲出去的，又能強多少呢？
Now on to weapons of the Roman legions.
My personal favourite melee weapon, the Roman Gladius. It is a short sword designed to be used as a stabbing weapon during close combat. Roman legionnaires can safely launch their attack behind their large rectangular shields. Stabbing weapons have been proven to be more effective in combat that slashing or crushing ones. However, the downside is its length.
Despite the impression of many, Roman ballista does not actually fire bolts but rather stones. Crafted out of wood, ropes and animal sinew, it fires a stone the size of a human fist to a distance of 600 feet. These can be found at nearly all ancient roman forts and strongholds, however, there are very few instances where they were carried to field battles on record.
下面是羅馬軍團的武器。
我個人最愛的近戰武器：羅馬短劍。短是為了方便在近戰中刺傷對方。羅馬人可以躲在巨型方盾後安全的攻擊，對於他們來說刺殺型武器在肉搏在中應該比砍殺型武器和碾壓型武器更有效，當然了，太短了也不好。
印象當中，羅馬的弩炮更多的是投擲石塊而不是燃燒的弩箭，用木材、繩子和動物肌腱製作而成的羅馬弩炮如果投擲一個拳頭大小的石塊，射程可達600英尺。這很多古羅馬防禦要塞都有發現。然而，沒有什麼例子能證明在野外陣地作戰的時候羅馬人也會使用弩炮。
閱讀更多 遙望134838473 的文章
