Rome vs. India

[Supermanboy]

OK, this is a WI question. Me and my friend were talking. He was gloating about Asoka and Indian innovation then, something came up about how India and Asoka improved Roman innovation. In response I (Italian to the fullest) and a knowledgeable person on the subject of Rome, told him thats impossible, and Rome would destroy India.

Yes, my response was not politically correct but then we ended up in a sort of Verbal war of our 2 homelands.

Anyways, this got me thinking and the question I pose to all you out there in AH.com is: Who would win, Rome (at its greatest, whenever that may be is up to you) vs. India (whichever Indian Empire you chose, though,try to keep the time periods of both empires within a few centuries of each other, as to have as little a tech. shift as possible.)


Thank you!

 

[Sachyriel]

War Elephants crush Phalanxes (Rock beat Scissors). Mountains nullify this advantage. -600 To Roman Morale then they see this:

 

[Anaxagoras]

Me and my friend at school were talking.

I think you meant to say, "My friend at school and I were talking".

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

This is assuming that all other countries in the way are... nonexistent?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

This is assuming that all other countries in the way are... nonexistent?

Ya, if either country tries to invade the other, they get crushed. If they fight in the middle of Persia then ???

Some steppes nomad regime comes and wipes out both...? Maybe?

Seriously, if they tried projecting power over that kind of distance, it would rather strain both systems, leaving them vulnerable. no?

 

[Supermanboy]

War Elephants crush Phalanxes (Rock beat Scissors).

.. I'm sure the Romans could beat elephants if Alexander could

I think you meant to say, "My friend at school and I were talking".

Thank you, it's changed

This is assuming that all other countries in the way are... nonexistent?

Yes! how stupid of me. Its just these two at war

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

War Elephants crush Phalanxes (Rock beat Scissors). Mountains nullify this advantage. -600 To Roman Morale then they see this:

I can see the Romans pulling an Alexander here. Defeating the first bunch of War elephants that cross them, taking them as their own, collecting more as they push through India and using them as their own. Plus the stealth and mobility of horses destroys elephant's power (in my opinion).

Ya, if either country tries to invade the other, they get crushed. If they fight in the middle of Persia then ???

Some steppes nomad regime comes and wipes out both...? Maybe?

Seriously, if they tried projecting power over that kind of distance, it would rather strain both systems, leaving them vulnerable. no?

The Huns are centuries off so no to steppe people.

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

If we were taking a vote let me just say I vote SPQR!

 

[Sachyriel]

.. I'm sure the Romans could beat elephants if Alexander could.

Alexander was beaten because he didn't have enough War Elephants to face the indigenious Elephants (however he made the post of Elephantarch to start to use his elephants in a co-ordinated way). The Indians in his time could muster 6,000 for a battle. In Romes time, maybe that figure doubles, and no matter how many the Romans capture, they do not have the training or the doctrine to use them effectively in larger battles.

I can see the Romans pulling an Alexander here. Defeating the first bunch of War elephants that cross them, taking them as their own, collecting more as they push through India and using them as their own. Plus the stealth and mobility of horses destroys elephant's power (in my opinion).

Yes, Horses. There are absolutely no horses in Asia.

 

[8Deer]

The Huns are centuries off so no to steppe people.

What about the Scythians?

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

What about the Scythians?

Assuming the WHOLE army of Rome is out kicking ass, then yes, mybe the Scythians (I often tend to forget the steppe people)

Alexander was beaten because he didn't have enough War Elephants to face the indigenious Elephants (however he made the post of Elephantarch to start to use his elephants in a co-ordinated way). The Indians in his time could muster 6,000 for a battle. In Romes time, maybe that figure doubles, and no matter how many the Romans capture, they do not have the training or the doctrine to use them effectively in larger battles.



Yes, Horses. There are absolutely no horses in Asia.

As 8Deer stated, Scythians were an Ancient Iranian people of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists. Also, lets assume that the Romans marched cavalry down to India. Also, double? As I know it, India was fractured into many small (relatively) states at the time Rome was at its peak (saying 117 here). All these states are going to protect each other and fuse their elephant cavalries together?

 

[Aranfan]

China comes in and trashes them both.

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

China comes in and trashes them both.

Hahaha, thats what this TL should be, Rome vs. China! I still vote Rome! No one is beating us! Muahahaha!

 

[Cockroach]

War Elephants crush Phalanxes (Rock beat Scissors). Mountains nullify this advantage. -600 To Roman Morale then they see this

Rome dealt with Carthignian elephants perfectly well with light infantry... and I wouldn't be so sure about Elephants squishing phalanxes: running head onto a mass of 6m Sarissas isn't going to do nice things to the Elephants...

Alexander was beaten because he didn't have enough War Elephants to face the indigenious Elephants (however he made the post of Elephantarch to start to use his elephants in a co-ordinated way).

Excuse me, but Alexander wasn't beaten by the Porus et al. Quite the contary...

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

Rome dealt with Carthignian elephants perfectly well with light infantry... and I wouldn't be so sure about Elephants squishing phalanxes: running head onto a mass of 6m Sarissas isn't going to do nice things to the Elephants...

Excuse me, but Alexander wasn't beaten by the Porus et al. Quite the contary...

excellently said

 

[Franciscus Caesar]

Supermanboy, you should have made a poll to this

 

[Michael B]

Alexander was beaten because he didn't have enough War Elephants to face the indigenious Elephants (however he made the post of Elephantarch to start to use his elephants in a co-ordinated way). The Indians in his time could muster 6,000 for a battle. In Romes time, maybe that figure doubles, and no matter how many the Romans capture, they do not have the training or the doctrine to use them effectively in larger battles.

The value of elephants in warfare can be assessed by the fact that John Keegan does not mention them at all in his A History of Warfare. If the Indians were to rely on pachyderms to defeat the Romans they are lining themselves up for the biggest stuffing since the Ten Thousand walked out of the Persian Empire.

The Romans have the ultimate infantry tactics to deal with elephants. When the pachderms charge the legionaries change formation so files appear and the pachyderms rush down them. Troops then peel off the back and hamstring them. The few crew on board would be no match for the finest ancient infantry and thus would not be able to stop the carnage.

As Pompey Minimus said at the Battle of the Deccan. "Bring them on. We are running short of meat."

 

[Reddog794]

Just to mention, that if Rome really needed elephants in numbers, it had African elephants.

Really though, Rome would win militarily.

 

[Atreus]

War Elephants crush Phalanxes (Rock beat Scissors). Mountains nullify this advantage. -600 To Roman Morale then they see this:

Am I the only person who noticed that the Roman's did not use phalanxes?

Well, aside from the early republican army, but I challenge anybody to seriously claim that that is Rome at it's greatest power.

Anyways, the Roman legionary system did a pretty decent job of countering elephants when they encountered them (Pyrrhus's expedition, for instance).

Finally, I would point out that the wars of the successors saw elephants used fairly frequently, and it did not render the Macedonian-style phalanx obsolete (it declined in importance, but not because of the presence of elephants).

 

[IMP CAES AVG]

The premise of the comparison is unclear: is it if the Roman Empire and whatever Indian empire fought a war, which would emerge victorious (which is a plainly impossible situation), or, if the armies of the two powers were placed in a theoretical battlefield, which one would emerge victorious?

On the subject of elephants: elephants were often more of a hazard then an asset. Rome defeated Epirus under Pyrrhus, Carthage and the Seleucid Empire under Antiochus III Megas, all of which employed elephants in large numbers.