Roman Empire vs Han China

[Urshani]

Both at their peaks, assume they can bring armies to each other.

Bonus: Basil II (Bulgar Slayer) vs Lu Bu

 

[Naito-desu]

Oh boy this is what my armchair historian credentials have been waiting for. I'm going to assume SBA although not very sure if the entire armies of Rome and China could fit in Central Park. Now VsBattles is a fun hobby but I will need to emphasize how too large a variable it is to account for every Roman and Chinese soldier in terms of morale, skill, and discipline, as well as all possible units and moves, it may as well be a chess game.

But overall? Incon. The fight would go on for too long for either Empire to want to sustain. Historically speaking, Rome has fought battles against smaller empires like Parthia and could never feasibly conquer it. There's no clear disparity in troop quality and tactical prowess and it all depends on the quality of their generals (which considering the best like Trajan, Hadrian, Agrippa vs Guan Yu, Ma Chao, and Zhang Fei, etc.) is also a toss-up. Han Empire itself has shown no capacity or desire to conquer its neighbors, at least in an aggressive defense policy similar to Rome's.

So really, lame answer but both would likely observe a live and let live policy or fight through buffer states.

As for Basil II vs Lu Bu, I'd give it to Lu Bu. Basil II is cruel and likely a great fighter but Lu Bu himself fought Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Liu Bei to a standstill, and they themselves are no slouches when it comes to battles.

 

[Urshani]

Oh boy this is what my armchair historian credentials have been waiting for. I'm going to assume SBA although not very sure if the entire armies of Rome and China could fit in Central Park. Now VsBattles is a fun hobby but I will need to emphasize how too large a variable it is to account for every Roman and Chinese soldier in terms of morale, skill, and discipline, as well as all possible units and moves, it may as well be a chess game.

But overall? Incon. The fight would go on for too long for either Empire to want to sustain. Historically speaking, Rome has fought battles against smaller empires like Parthia and could never feasibly conquer it. There's no clear disparity in troop quality and tactical prowess and it all depends on the quality of their generals (which considering the best like Trajan, Hadrian, Agrippa vs Guan Yu, Ma Chao, and Zhang Fei, etc.) is also a toss-up. Han Empire itself has shown no capacity or desire to conquer its neighbors, at least in an aggressive defense policy similar to Rome's.

So really, lame answer but both would likely observe a live and let live policy or fight through buffer states.

As for Basil II vs Lu Bu, I'd give it to Lu Bu. Basil II is cruel and likely a great fighter but Lu Bu himself fought Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Liu Bei to a standstill, and they themselves are no slouches when it comes to battles.

good answer, too bad there's no pages for the respective empires