posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by silent thunder
Right. Any question of comparing civilisations, the natural resource for me is Toynbee.
I've dug up this quotation from Study of History, vol 7, on the Roman army;
"Augustus' army possessed no striking force, no field army, no reserves,and the only means of reinforcing the garrison of one sector of the was the
drafting of a detachment from the garrison of another sector...After Hadrian had made a rule of the prevailing tendancy for the legions...to be
recruited locally...the whole Roman army was degraded into being a bevy of gendarmes and customs officials."
This suggests to me that the proposed Roman expeditionary force would be feeling very uncomfortable and vulnerable far from home. Even Germany, the
record shows, was something of a "bridge too far".
Furthermore, my impression of Roman military history is that they were prone to suffer catastrophic defeats as a result of ambush- perhaps something
to do with a tendancy to neglect reconnaissance. In unfamiliar terrain, this would be absolutely fatal.
My hasty search hasn't yet found a comparison passage for the Han, but things are looking good for them at the moment.