Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Dan Howard]

Look here, I'm trying to guide the discussion into a nonobjective comparison here. There is no need to compare which one is "better". I believe we have agreed that to say that the Han is superior is nationalistic. By logic the same then would be true when people say that Rome is militarily superior.

It is nationalistic to claim that the Han is superior when it is demonstrably not. It isn't nationalistic to make a claim about a particular aspect of a culture if the facts back up that claim.

but the fact that a most military defeats means nothing but a loss of men/horses means that their defeats pale in comparison to sedentary defeats. They do not have an economy that can become strained due to an defeat, and they do not have a land that can be pillaged.

So why did Rome keep coming back dispite huge defeats all through her history? There is no way that a nomadic culture could survive even a single one of the larger defeats the Romans suffered. As already stated, rival clans would swallow them up.