|
On September 07 2011 00:58 FindMeInKenya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century. This subject has been discussed extensively in this thread, with multiple sources pointing to Han supremacy over Rome. Please look back to previous pages before further discussion, and unless you can provide new sources/material that shown otherwise we can stop the whole Han vs Rome debacle.
There were no sources pointing to any supremacy, especially not military one as they never met. The only sources were army sizes taken directly from original literary sources, which are basically always inflated. Population estimates are equal or in favour of Rome from around the reign of Augustus. In 20-150AD Rome had bigger population, in late 1st century quite considerably so.
|
On September 07 2011 01:41 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 00:58 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century. This subject has been discussed extensively in this thread, with multiple sources pointing to Han supremacy over Rome. Please look back to previous pages before further discussion, and unless you can provide new sources/material that shown otherwise we can stop the whole Han vs Rome debacle. There were no sources pointing to any supremacy, especially not military one as they never met. The only sources were army sizes taken directly from original literary sources, which are basically always inflated. Population estimates are equal or in favour of Rome from around the reign of Augustus. In 20-150AD Rome had bigger population, in late 1st century quite considerably so.
Dude.... i thought we went through this. Multiple primary sources pointed to similar number should be more than enough proof. Additionally, we also discussed in length the superiority of Chinese weaponry, army size and composition(professionalism), logistical capacity, and economies. If that is not supremacy, what is? Go back to page 28 and onward, population sizes and sources are all there.
|
On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century.
Some 70 years of tribute to the Xiongnu at the start of a dynasty that lasted over 400 years, when it was still weak and reeling from civil war, is hardly representative. You are forgetting that the Romans suffered numerous setbacks and defeats during their initial yeas, as well. For example, the occupation of Italy, the Roman homeland, by Hannibal in the Second Punic War, and the invasion and rampage through Roman territory by the Teutons and Cimbris in the Cimbrian War, and the utter defeat of Crassus in the Battle of Carrhae against the Parthian Empire, which nearly cost Rome its eastern territories.
Just because the Romans did not officially pay tribute, does not mean they were not defeated and on the verge of disaster, as the system of politics in the Mediterranean operated differently from that of East Asia, where tributes were much more common. A concept like military and/or political "supremacy" is always relative, and there were periods when the Romans had no "supremacy" over their neighbors, but had to struggle to defend themselves, much as the Han empire did.
Not to mention, the Romans were no more able to conquer the vast Eurasian steppes - no empire until the Russians in near modern times was able to accomplish that feat, for the nomads could always flee to fight another day, and had no "homeland" that could be invaded and neutralized. This preoccupation with the nomads masked the Han's military supremacy over other sedentary states in East Asia, among which it was virtually peerless. No sedentary neighbor was ever able to successfully invade or conquer the Han empire, but the opposite was not true: the Han empire regularly invaded and conquered its sedentary neighbors, and that is how the entirety of South China came to be Chinese - a territorial expansion that outlasted anything the Romans did.
For this reason, I question your understanding of East Asian history, if you think that the Han empire's time was not long enough or consistent enough. As one of the largest and longest lasting empires in East Asia (far exceeding the Mongols in duration), the Han Dynasty is probably more relevant to the political situation in East Asia today than the Romans are in Europe.
Before the Han, the country known as "China" was localized to the North China Plains, surrounded by innumerable hostile and foreign neighbors. After the Han, the country known as "China" extended across the whole of mainland East Asia, implanting itself in the agricultural and demographic center of the entire sub-continent. The expansion of the Han Dynasty was one of the most important and consistent events in East Asian history, for unlike the Mongols, whose power died with their empire, the Han Dynasty was the stage setter for 2,000+ years of cultural and demographic expansion, which has led to the PRC today.
|
On September 07 2011 02:15 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century. Some 70 years of tribute to the Xiongnu at the start of a dynasty that lasted over 400 years, when it was still weak and reeling from civil war, is hardly representative. You are forgetting that the Romans suffered numerous setbacks and defeats during their initial yeas, as well. For example, the occupation of Italy, the Roman homeland, by Hannibal in the Second Punic War, and the invasion and rampage through Roman territory by the Teutons and Cimbris in the Cimbrian War, and the utter defeat of Crassus in the Battle of Carrhae against the Parthian Empire, which nearly cost Rome its eastern territories. Just because the Romans did not officially pay tribute, does not mean they were not defeated and on the verge of disaster, as the system of politics in the Mediterranean operated differently from that of East Asia, where tributes were much more common. Not to mention, the Romans were no more able to conquer the vast Eurasian steppes - no empire until the Russians in near modern times was able to accomplish that feat, for the nomads could always flee to fight another day, and had no "homeland" that could be invaded and neutralized. This tendency masked the Han's military supremacy over other sedentary nations in East Asia, among which it was peerless. No sedentary neighbor was ever able to successfully invade or defeat the Han empire, but the opposite was not true: the Han regularly invaded and defeated its sedentary neighbors, and that is how the entirety of South China came to be Chinese - a territorial expansion that outlasted anything the Romans did. For this reason, I question your understanding of East Asian history, if you think that the Han empire's time was not long enough or consistent enough. As one of the largest and longest lasting empires in East Asia (far exceeding the Mongols in duration), the Han Dynasty is probably more relevant to the political situation in East Asia today than the Romans are in Europe. Before the Han, the country known as "China" was localized to the North China Plains, surrounded by innumerable hostile and foreign neighbors. After the Han, the country known as "China" extended across the whole of mainland East Asia, implanting itself in the agricultural and demographic center of the entire sub-continent. The expansion of the Han Dynasty was one of the most important and consistent events in East Asian history, for unlike the Mongols, whose power died with their empire, the Han Dynasty was the stage setter for 2,000+ years of cultural and demographic expansion, which has led to the PRC today.
To add to that Romans paid "tribute" long before 4th century, they paid tribute to some tribes even in the 1st century.
|
On September 06 2011 15:37 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. But the same is true of the Byzantines and the Persians, neither of whom were that strong around 600 AD. In fact, the Persians would soon suffer a fate not unlike that of China to the Mongols, as the Persian Sassanid Empire would survive only until 651, after which Muslim Arabs overran Persia. The Byzantines, meanwhile, faced shrinking territories, to the extent that their holdings in 717 AD barely looked like an empire. In any case, he has a point about Tang China, though only about Tang China. There were two periods when China could conceivably have been called one of the strongest states in the world, and that was during the Han and Tang dynasties (the Han longer than the Tang). You might be able to throw in the early Ming, as well, though the Ming was not able to extend its power very far. It was during these rare times that China was able to defeat unified steppe empires to their north - the Xiongnu in the case of the Han, the Gokturks in the case of the Tang, neither of which were weak entities by any means. I'd consider some of the greatest Chinese generals to have lived during these times - commanders like Huo Qubing, who soundly defeated the fearsome Xiongnu horse warriors with his crack cavalry. Though, to be fair, the Romans and the Mongols weren't perennially powerful, either. They each had their time in the sun, and subsequently fell into decline and decay. And I'm not sure that their power was more enduring than that of China's, as neither the Roman empire nor the Mongol empire has survived, whereas something of a Chinese empire persists to this day. No single country was strong throughout the course of history.
China never had the dominance of the Romans or the Mongols?
You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China.
While it was not particularly powerful militarily outsider of the Han and Tang eras, the area encompassing Chinese speaking peoples has had by far the largest economy in the world from the birth of Christ to the early 19th century when it was surpassed by an industrial Britain, had a far greater influence on the global economy than any other nation, and basically the best military technology supported by an industrial backbone (for much of human history, China smelted more iron than the rest of the world combined).
|
On September 06 2011 23:29 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 22:52 haduken wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities. It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them. Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account. As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness. Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops. Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long. Who could outnumber Tang and especially Ming with their huge populations? It is true that Song resisted over 30 something years. But we are talking about military supremacy and i dont see any supremacy of Chinese army. By definition, country with vast population, rich economy and good government institutions must be dominating the immediate neighbors at least. Chinese may have dominated politically or economically but not through military supremacy or warfare. Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare.
But the Tang and the Ming did dominate most of their immediate neighbors, especially their sedentary neighbors, almost all of whom paid tribute. Even the nomads submitted during the early Tang and Ming. You seem to forget that Tang Taizong was both the emperor of China and the khan of khans of the Turks, and also that it was the Ming which chased down and destroyed the remnants of the Mongol empire in East Asia.
|
On September 07 2011 01:51 FindMeInKenya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 01:41 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 00:58 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 22:41 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 17:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Depends on the period of history, I think. During the early, formative periods, the Chinese conquered their neighbors more than the other way around. During the later, decadent periods, the Chinese were conquered by their neighbors more than the other way around. You're treating China as if only the later periods are relevant. But the problem with this thinking is that China wasn't always this big - like the Romans, they became big by conquering their neighbors. For example, during the Han Dynasty, China conquered: South China (which was not originally part of China) Vietnam North Korea The Tarim Basin Parts of Inner Mongolia Parts of Manchuria At its height, the Han empire matched the Roman empire in size and population, and was the most powerful political entity in the eastern half of the world. If you would admit the Roman Empire, then you must also admit Han Dynasty China. They were comparable. Han and Roman Empire (Republic) hardly comparable. Han had their time but it was not long enough or consistent enough. At the height of Xiongnu (Huns) and Xianbei, Han was their vassal and tributary state. For example they payed 70 years of tribute to Hun. I don't see any supremacy whatsoever here. Romans hardly payed any tribute to until 4th century. This subject has been discussed extensively in this thread, with multiple sources pointing to Han supremacy over Rome. Please look back to previous pages before further discussion, and unless you can provide new sources/material that shown otherwise we can stop the whole Han vs Rome debacle. There were no sources pointing to any supremacy, especially not military one as they never met. The only sources were army sizes taken directly from original literary sources, which are basically always inflated. Population estimates are equal or in favour of Rome from around the reign of Augustus. In 20-150AD Rome had bigger population, in late 1st century quite considerably so. Dude.... i thought we went through this. Multiple primary sources pointed to similar number should be more than enough proof. Additionally, we also discussed in length the superiority of Chinese weaponry, army size and composition(professionalism), logistical capacity, and economies. If that is not supremacy, what is? Go back to page 28 and onward, population sizes and sources are all there.
I did not participate in discussions about weaponry as they are at best theorycrafting.
Professionalism does not point to either side in most realistic estimates. But not much can be said as accurate composition of especially Chinese armies is hard to determine.
As for economy, the only person who provided any scientific source as far as I remember was me and that source pointed out that Han China was quite poor as far as metals of all sorts go compared to Imperial Rome. Hard to derive much from that especially considering how inaccurate the numbers are for China. Estimates of GDP per capita also seem to favor Rome in some sources and Han in others, but I find them too speculative to give them too much credit in either case. One good indicator of wealth might be percentage of population living in cities which would be in favor of Rome, but that is just using correlation between that and wealth in history, again nothing sure.
As for logistics, supplying 150+k armies for prolonged periods of time in enemy territory is basically impossible for any country before 1500AD(and even after for some time). This just makes me even more wary of the army numbers of Chinese armies, especially strange are claims of enormous armies operating in the northern steppes. As for realistic logistical capacities, they depend on area in question, close to their borders both had similar logistical capacities and I saw no sources that actually show Chinese supremacy other than numbers derived from alleged army sizes, which borders on circular logic.
As for population again as far as I remember I was the only one who provided actual scientific source for my numbers, but even wiki and other google sources agree with the estimates that in AD Rome had bigger population and even for some time in BC roughly equal. If we use upper bounds for China and standard estimates for Rome then China has bigger population, but that seems unfair as using upper estimate for Rome also we get the original result again.
As for army sizes, multiple INDEPENDENT original sources would be indicative, were it not for clear problems arising from armies of such size at that time. Some provided sources were secondary and some were not independent on each other.
The only sources otherwise provided were links to a forum thread where people are bickering as we are here with a lot of apparent bending of history to suit their needs on both sides, not really a trustworthy source.
EDIT: The most damning thing in the thread in the other forum was when a guy who was arguing in favor of China in the other forum said that archeological evidence cannot disprove written sources. After this display of totally unscientific approach I gave up on that thread.
|
Erwin Rommel / Georgy Zhukov
Khalid ibn al Walid
Tiglath-Pileser III
I wonder why this thread has become another sinophobic rant...
I've noticed (I've been a Stalker since 2006 before finally registering some months ago, and becoming an Immortal...) that there's been quite a rise of sinophobia on these forums within the past year.
You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China.
Meh..... more so like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Italy. By the Middle Ages, it was largely from the Abbasid caliphate, of which what little knowledge survived from Baghdad was the primary catalyst for the scientific revolution in Italia and other countries after the Mongols came and exterminated the Abbasid population almost entirely O_O
|
On September 06 2011 23:29 jtrex wrote:
Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare.
Lol wut.
China has survived as a civilization because their leaders realized a long time ago that armies cannot maintain an empire on the long term, so they started to focus on the psychological and economical aspect.
That does not make them poor at fighting in the slightest. Until the late Ming, Chinese armies were probably the best in the whole world.
Hell, China went head to head with the US just 50 years ago in Korea, neither side could win in conventional warfare. If you are looking to make a claim for a lack of the warrior spirit or whatever, you are mistaken.
I wonder why this thread has become another sinophobic rant...
|
On September 07 2011 03:00 RavenLoud wrote:
Hell, China went head to head with the US just 50 years ago in Korea, neither side could win in conventional warfare. If you are looking to make a claim for a lack of the warrior spirit or whatever, you are mistaken.
Uhm, noo. The US could easily have won. The US stopped trying to push past the 38th parallel out of fear of involving Russia. The threat of escalating the war to a nuclear state was too high. North Korea and China didn't hold off the US, their own troops were starving to death. The US stopped advancing for political reasons.
|
![[image loading]](http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2020/neyland.jpg)
Say hello to Gen. Bob R. Neyland.
|
On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 15:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. But the same is true of the Byzantines and the Persians, neither of whom were that strong around 600 AD. In fact, the Persians would soon suffer a fate not unlike that of China to the Mongols, as the Persian Sassanid Empire would survive only until 651, after which Muslim Arabs overran Persia. The Byzantines, meanwhile, faced shrinking territories, to the extent that their holdings in 717 AD barely looked like an empire. In any case, he has a point about Tang China, though only about Tang China. There were two periods when China could conceivably have been called one of the strongest states in the world, and that was during the Han and Tang dynasties (the Han longer than the Tang). You might be able to throw in the early Ming, as well, though the Ming was not able to extend its power very far. It was during these rare times that China was able to defeat unified steppe empires to their north - the Xiongnu in the case of the Han, the Gokturks in the case of the Tang, neither of which were weak entities by any means. I'd consider some of the greatest Chinese generals to have lived during these times - commanders like Huo Qubing, who soundly defeated the fearsome Xiongnu horse warriors with his crack cavalry. Though, to be fair, the Romans and the Mongols weren't perennially powerful, either. They each had their time in the sun, and subsequently fell into decline and decay. And I'm not sure that their power was more enduring than that of China's, as neither the Roman empire nor the Mongol empire has survived, whereas something of a Chinese empire persists to this day. No single country was strong throughout the course of history. China never had the dominance of the Romans or the Mongols? You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China. While it was not particularly powerful militarily outsider of the Han and Tang eras, the area encompassing Chinese speaking peoples has had by far the largest economy in the world from the birth of Christ to the early 19th century when it was surpassed by an industrial Britain, had a far greater influence on the global economy than any other nation, and basically the best military technology supported by an industrial backbone (for much of human history, China smelted more iron than the rest of the world combined).
That is not really true that vast majority of technological innovation in Europe comes from China. Not much actually. From 3000-1000 (at least) Near East was as far as I can tell the vanguard of most such things. After that China in many areas for a time surpassed the "west", but they mostly went their own ways. If Europe should thank anyone it would be Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Arabs and after that China. Also most technologies transmitted from China were quickly much improved by Arabs and Europeans far past Chinese originals. But in any case they were at best nice impulses, their influence on Arab and European science and technology were visible (gunpowder and paper especially  ), but probably not vital. Not compared to a list of Near East and native European breakthroughs. Note that many things were developed independently in China and Near East + Europe. Also the Chinese influence is basically limited to 600AD and later as it was through Arabs and Mongols that the transmission took place. And China also used technologies developed elsewhere.
As for iron there is many different claims about who produced more iron Rome, China, Caliphate,..., but really noone knows for sure as there are no good data especially for Rome and Han. It is quite sure that during Song dynasty China far surpassed any other country.
|
On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 15:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. But the same is true of the Byzantines and the Persians, neither of whom were that strong around 600 AD. In fact, the Persians would soon suffer a fate not unlike that of China to the Mongols, as the Persian Sassanid Empire would survive only until 651, after which Muslim Arabs overran Persia. The Byzantines, meanwhile, faced shrinking territories, to the extent that their holdings in 717 AD barely looked like an empire. In any case, he has a point about Tang China, though only about Tang China. There were two periods when China could conceivably have been called one of the strongest states in the world, and that was during the Han and Tang dynasties (the Han longer than the Tang). You might be able to throw in the early Ming, as well, though the Ming was not able to extend its power very far. It was during these rare times that China was able to defeat unified steppe empires to their north - the Xiongnu in the case of the Han, the Gokturks in the case of the Tang, neither of which were weak entities by any means. I'd consider some of the greatest Chinese generals to have lived during these times - commanders like Huo Qubing, who soundly defeated the fearsome Xiongnu horse warriors with his crack cavalry. Though, to be fair, the Romans and the Mongols weren't perennially powerful, either. They each had their time in the sun, and subsequently fell into decline and decay. And I'm not sure that their power was more enduring than that of China's, as neither the Roman empire nor the Mongol empire has survived, whereas something of a Chinese empire persists to this day. No single country was strong throughout the course of history. China never had the dominance of the Romans or the Mongols? You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China. While it was not particularly powerful militarily outsider of the Han and Tang eras, the area encompassing Chinese speaking peoples has had by far the largest economy in the world from the birth of Christ to the early 19th century when it was surpassed by an industrial Britain, had a far greater influence on the global economy than any other nation, and basically the best military technology supported by an industrial backbone (for much of human history, China smelted more iron than the rest of the world combined).
First, the vast majority of technological innovations did not come from China, as the poster above me explained.
Second, you're talking about economic power again, whereas he's talking about military power.
Militarily, China was powerful during a few, specific periods, one of which I pointed out above.
I do agree with you that the Tang (or at least the early Tang) was one of those periods, and that to call the Byzantine and Persian empires of 600 AD stronger than the Tang is questionable.
But to say that China was, prior to 1600 AD, the "strongest nation" in the world, as you did, is likewise incorrect, especially with respect to military affairs.
|
On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:I've noticed (I've been a Stalker since 2006 before finally registering some months ago, and becoming an Immortal...) that there's been quite a rise of sinophobia on these forums within the past year.
Funny, I haven't noticed that at all. Closest thing would be the funny commercial that had a thread a few months back.
Who is being sinophobic in this thread? I must have missed the recent sinophobic rant, unless the one guy who said "Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare." counts as the whole forums/thread.
Someone disputing the relative historical strength of China with you doesn't mean they are sinophobic.
|
|
|
On September 07 2011 03:30 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 03:00 RavenLoud wrote:
Hell, China went head to head with the US just 50 years ago in Korea, neither side could win in conventional warfare. If you are looking to make a claim for a lack of the warrior spirit or whatever, you are mistaken. Uhm, noo. The US could easily have won. The US stopped trying to push past the 38th parallel out of fear of involving Russia. The threat of escalating the war to a nuclear state was too high. North Korea and China didn't hold off the US, their own troops were starving to death. The US stopped advancing for political reasons.
Do you have anything at all to substantiate this claim of Soviet entry or their plan to use nuclear weapons at that? Because there was no sign of that happening at all.
Actually, it came very close to becoming nuclear war because MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China because the US forces were being pushed back swiftly in conventional warfare. Fortunately, people in the US government, who actually had something between their ears, were able to tame him. The man was batshit insane.
The fact of the matter is that the Chinese entered the war due to General MacArthur's idiocy and arrogance not heeding Chinese warnings and they pushed the US forces back to South Korea. That doesn't sound like winning to me, nevermind "could easily have won" LOL
|
The best general was General Ly
well he was the best in general
|
On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Erwin Rommel / Georgy Zhukov Khalid ibn al Walid Tiglath-Pileser III I've noticed (I've been a Stalker since 2006 before finally registering some months ago, and becoming an Immortal...) that there's been quite a rise of sinophobia on these forums within the past year. Show nested quote +You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China.
Meh..... more so like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Italy. By the Middle Ages, it was largely from the Abbasid caliphate, of which what little knowledge survived from Baghdad was the primary catalyst for the scientific revolution in Italia and other countries after the Mongols came and exterminated the Abbasid population almost entirely O_O
4 great general here, but Khalid is by far ahead of the other. Rommel had a terrible 1943 year and zhukov didn't fare to well in 1941. I got Khalid at 7.
As for Tiglath Pileser III, he's somewhere around 40-50 he is definitely a great general but sources are somewhat scarce/very biased. Still a very solid general. And one cruel SOB(but who isn't really!)
|
On September 07 2011 00:22 DenSkumle wrote:Erich von Manstein ![[image loading]](http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9760/image2mo.jpg) Why ? Well.. he was the best general, in the best army. In the biggest war ever to date.
Sorry for double post*
Certainly the best general of ww2(not counting admirals here). Commanded huge amount of troops and stalled the russians for a very long time. I always disliked that he couldn't save stalingrad but even if he had linked up with the city, there's no way Hitler would have allowed them to retreat, which would have undoubtedly led to an even bigger entrapment of people in Stalingrad. Bonus point for the siege of Sevastopol.
Disobeying hitler in 44 by retreating further towards the balkasn might have been one of the best moves on the eastern front. He got sacked for it but had he not did it, it's very possible the USSR could have been in Italy by 1945.
-----------------------------------------
For those who wondered what criteria im using to make my top 100 list:
Evaluation of Generals
These are the primary facets to consider in evaluating generals’ skills:
1. Individual battlefield inspirational leadership—leadership of the soldier
a. Exemplary work/Personal bravery
b. Motivation
c. Discipline
d. Equipment (and hence innovation in equipment)
e. Logistics (small scale)
2. Tactical mastery—gaining success on the battlefield
a. Maneuver
b. Anticipation
c. Timing
d. Deception of intentions
e. Organization of army
f. Selection of ground for battle
g. Disposition of troops
h. Reconnaissance
i. Evaluating options
j. Audacity at proper times
k. Understanding the enemy
2.5. (Less important) Siege mastery—gaining success in sieges
a. Logistics
b. Engineering
c. Timing
d. Intelligence gathering
e. Motivation of troops
3. Strategic mastery—gaining success in campaign through maneuver or battle
a. Logistics
b. Maneuver on large scale
c. Understanding opportunities
d. Diplomacy with allied armies/generals
e. Forcing battle when necessary
f. Obtaining results from victories in battles
g. Limiting fallout from defeats in battles
h. Choosing when to siege and when to bypass strong points
i. Large-scale organization of army(s)
j. Audacity at proper times
k. Evaluating the enemy’s options
l. Defense—fortifications
4. Grand strategic mastery—gaining victory/the ends desired through the military campaigns (political victory/conquest)
a. Diplomacy with allies and foes
b. Intelligence gathering
c. Understanding when to go to war
d. Playing off rivalries
e. Properly using strategic victories
f. Choosing proper goals for campaigns
g. Peace negotiations
h. Pacification of inhabitants conquered
All of these must be considered in relation to:
1. The relative strength of each side in each of these 4 facets
2. The skill of opponents
3. The economy with which victory in each of these 4 facets was one (in money, destruction of property, and manpower).
4. Where the general was limited by influences out of his control (for instance, many generals had no opportunity to exhibit facet #4, grand strategy).
5. Where generals were stabbed in the back/not supported by their own nations—see Barca, Hannibal.
6. Whether the methods in which victories were gained were innovative or common practice (a small influence, but perhaps should be considered).
7. The time scale of victories
|
On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Erwin Rommel / Georgy Zhukov Khalid ibn al Walid Tiglath-Pileser III I've noticed (I've been a Stalker since 2006 before finally registering some months ago, and becoming an Immortal...) that there's been quite a rise of sinophobia on these forums within the past year. Show nested quote +You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China.
Meh..... more so like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Italy. By the Middle Ages, it was largely from the Abbasid caliphate, of which what little knowledge survived from Baghdad was the primary catalyst for the scientific revolution in Italia and other countries after the Mongols came and exterminated the Abbasid population almost entirely O_O
It can be contested what was primary catalyst for Italian renessaince. Influx of educated people from conquered Constantinople is also often quoted as primary catalyst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/neyland.jpg/)
