|
On September 07 2011 04:57 Adaptation wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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 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!)
What about Tiglatpilesar II ?  I am joking since basically nothing is known about him.
Anyway, what is your opinion on Lukullus and Aurelianus. Lukullus' eastern campaign was very well executed and battle at Tigranocerta was exemplary feat. He was not too much loved by soldiers though. As for Aurelianus his restoration of the empire might have saved Rome from much quicker death, and all the campaigns were again quite brilliant.
EDIT:typo
|
julius caesar, not only was he a brilliant statesman, brilliant enough to have the senate fear him, what other general not only encircles the town he is besieging with a continuous wall, but builds a second wall around his army to prevent outside attack.
|
Djinghis Khan. Ran over most of Asia and controlled the biggest empire ever. Ruthless but did what had to be done to conquer that much land ;
|
On September 07 2011 05:22 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 04:57 Adaptation wrote:On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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 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!) What about Tiglatpilesar II ? I am joking since basically nothing is known about him. Anyway, what is your opinion on Lukullus and Aurelianus. Lukullus' eastern campaign was very well executed and battle at Tigranocerta was exemplary feat. He was not too much loved by soldiers though. As for Aurelianus his restoration of the empire might have saved Rome from much quicker death, and all the campaigns were again quite brilliant. EDIT:typo
Aurelian is somewhere around 70 on my list because of what you said. Had he not died so young, he could be much much higher. Saved Rome's ass and opened the way to Diocletian
Lucullus was good, but couldn't finish the job. Also made the mistake of trusting his damn brother too much. He's not on my 100 list but with reconsidering i think he is better then some of the lower half guys there(Lucullus is certainly better then André messena!)
|
I'm guessing my college football reference was lost here. sigh. nerds.
|
Napoleon
拿破仑
(Chinese joke about Napoleon's name sounding like "hold a broken wheel"
Wrecked Europe singlehandedly (literally, the other was busy scratching himself).
After escaping his first exile he sparked Europe to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers at him.
|
General is horrible. Feels like the worst part of TL atm.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 07 2011 02:15 Azarkon wrote:
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.
More to the point, the Romans had next to no interest in the vast Eurasian steppes. There was no gold to loot there, an invasion would be a money losing expedition with nothing they recognized as civilization there worth conquering. Even in later periods the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire mostly only bothered with the steppes to get mercenary horsemen.
I'm enjoying the discussion, both the Roman and Chinese civilizations made important long term impacts on the area they were in, their legacy continues to impact the world today.
|
On September 07 2011 05:38 Adaptation wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 05:22 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 04:57 Adaptation wrote:On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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 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!) What about Tiglatpilesar II ? I am joking since basically nothing is known about him. Anyway, what is your opinion on Lukullus and Aurelianus. Lukullus' eastern campaign was very well executed and battle at Tigranocerta was exemplary feat. He was not too much loved by soldiers though. As for Aurelianus his restoration of the empire might have saved Rome from much quicker death, and all the campaigns were again quite brilliant. EDIT:typo Aurelian is somewhere around 70 on my list because of what you said. Had he not died so young, he could be much much higher. Saved Rome's ass and opened the way to Diocletian Lucullus was good, but couldn't finish the job. Also made the mistake of trusting his damn brother too much. He's not on my 100 list but with reconsidering i think he is better then some of the lower half guys there(Lucullus is certainly better then André messena!)
Well he could not finish the job because of his mentioned inability to make the soldiers like him or because his political opponents bribed his soldiers to start making trouble so command can be given to Pompeius instead. Probably combination of both. But at that time and place politics was part of being general, so ...
|
On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote: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.
A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time.
I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part.
I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things.
For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food.
|
On September 07 2011 06:59 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote: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. A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time. I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part. I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things. For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food.
You are kind of making Asia smaller than it is. Asia as a whole was never dominated by China. Russian Asia, Persia, Near East, India were never really dominated by China.
|
On September 07 2011 07:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 06:59 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote: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. A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time. I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part. I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things. For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food. You are kind of making Asia smaller than it is. Asia as a whole was never dominated by China. Russian Asia, Persia, Near East, India were never really dominated by China.
india was separated by the god damn himalayas, that is so impractical to go after that only a retard would.
other than india, the rest of those places u mention were all a bit too far to be practical for control also. Russian asia isn't exactly great for the chinese who are used to much warmer weather and what is there to gain that far up north. Persia is way too far away west as soon by the mongols losing control over it rather rapidly. near east? as in japan n korea? they are nonfactors until way way pass 1600. china simply took the tribute from them n didn't bother wasting their time.
use comparable things in europe for the roman empire and you'll use the same reason i use to discount your argument.
china dominated most of its immediate neighbor for a considerable amount of time. I don't think that is really arguable. they were actually smart in only taking things that they believe they can hold onto for a long time. in star craft terms, its like taking a random base in the middle of no where. sure you might hold it for a while, but eventually you are gunna lose it. as oppose to taking your natural where you will hold onto forever
|
This guy.
many, even british historians will compare him to the legend horatio nelson.
Yi did near impossible things with the bare minimum.
great guy
|
United States43136 Posts
On September 07 2011 05:38 Adaptation wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 05:22 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 04:57 Adaptation wrote:On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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 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!) What about Tiglatpilesar II ? I am joking since basically nothing is known about him. Anyway, what is your opinion on Lukullus and Aurelianus. Lukullus' eastern campaign was very well executed and battle at Tigranocerta was exemplary feat. He was not too much loved by soldiers though. As for Aurelianus his restoration of the empire might have saved Rome from much quicker death, and all the campaigns were again quite brilliant. EDIT:typo Aurelian is somewhere around 70 on my list because of what you said. Had he not died so young, he could be much much higher. Saved Rome's ass and opened the way to Diocletian Lucullus was good, but couldn't finish the job. Also made the mistake of trusting his damn brother too much. He's not on my 100 list but with reconsidering i think he is better then some of the lower half guys there(Lucullus is certainly better then André messena!)
Basil II? The first "Roman" in four centuries to push the barbarians back to the Danube frontier. Fought wars on two fronts, suppressed the palace intrigue, revitalised the yeoman class and rescued the state finances all while implementing a brutal war of attrition.
|
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.
A poster already explained...the fact is that US was on the verge of considering nuclear weapons should tell you something about their frustrating situation.
The Russians were instrumental in the war because they provided the latest weaponry to go head to head with the US. It was probably the first time that China had fought an enemy without a technological disadvantage since at least a century.
However, for fear of WW3, both the US and the USSR were smart enough to avoid direct confrontation.
You are grossly misinformed to claim that the US could have "easily won".
You also seem to forget that the Chinese under Peng DeHuai actually had to push the US back to the 38' parallel to begin with, before anyone "stopped advancing for political reasons"....(aka exhaust all their options, except for nukes, and realize that it was not worth starting WW3 over Korea)
This is kind of off topic tbh.
|
On September 07 2011 00:48 .Sic. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. I am absolutely amazed that some people think killing millions of your own citizens is a criteria for a good leader. Anyone can recover any country in extreme deficit by killing off a huge portion of the population, taking their money, and building infrastructure with it.
That's not even it, because Hitler was an awful general. In fact, he constantly got in the way of his generals' plans. If he let his generals do their jobs, then he would have won the war. This isn't even counting the rivalries he created due to his horrible chain of command.
|
On September 07 2011 07:20 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 07:08 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 06:59 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote: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. A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time. I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part. I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things. For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food. You are kind of making Asia smaller than it is. Asia as a whole was never dominated by China. Russian Asia, Persia, Near East, India were never really dominated by China. india was separated by the god damn himalayas, that is so impractical to go after that only a retard would. other than india, the rest of those places u mention were all a bit too far to be practical for control also. Russian asia isn't exactly great for the chinese who are used to much warmer weather and what is there to gain that far up north. Persia is way too far away west as soon by the mongols losing control over it rather rapidly. near east? as in japan n korea? they are nonfactors until way way pass 1600. china simply took the tribute from them n didn't bother wasting their time. use comparable things in europe for the roman empire and you'll use the same reason i use to discount your argument. china dominated most of its immediate neighbor for a considerable amount of time. I don't think that is really arguable. they were actually smart in only taking things that they believe they can hold onto for a long time. in star craft terms, its like taking a random base in the middle of no where. sure you might hold it for a while, but eventually you are gunna lose it. as oppose to taking your natural where you will hold onto forever
My argument ? What are you talking about ? I just reacted to you saying that China dominated Asia, which is factually wrong. I said nothing about Rome dominating Europe, although they were definitely closer to it than China to domination of Asia, simply because Europe is much smaller.
The rest of your post makes no sense as a reaction to what I said.
|
On September 07 2011 08:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 07:20 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 07:08 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 06:59 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote: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. A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time. I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part. I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things. For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food. You are kind of making Asia smaller than it is. Asia as a whole was never dominated by China. Russian Asia, Persia, Near East, India were never really dominated by China. india was separated by the god damn himalayas, that is so impractical to go after that only a retard would. other than india, the rest of those places u mention were all a bit too far to be practical for control also. Russian asia isn't exactly great for the chinese who are used to much warmer weather and what is there to gain that far up north. Persia is way too far away west as soon by the mongols losing control over it rather rapidly. near east? as in japan n korea? they are nonfactors until way way pass 1600. china simply took the tribute from them n didn't bother wasting their time. use comparable things in europe for the roman empire and you'll use the same reason i use to discount your argument. china dominated most of its immediate neighbor for a considerable amount of time. I don't think that is really arguable. they were actually smart in only taking things that they believe they can hold onto for a long time. in star craft terms, its like taking a random base in the middle of no where. sure you might hold it for a while, but eventually you are gunna lose it. as oppose to taking your natural where you will hold onto forever My argument ? What are you talking about ? I just reacted to you saying that China dominated Asia, which is factually wrong. I said nothing about Rome dominating Europe, although they were definitely closer to it than China to domination of Asia, simply because Europe is much smaller. The rest of your post makes no sense as a reaction to what I said.
my bad, i just assume you agree with the the previous post about the roman empire comparison. since i quoted things about that i like to respond to the thread as a whole instead of picking a needle out of a haysack and ranting about it.
let me rephrase. China dominated most of east and south asia. west asia is pretty impractical because of the himalayas and various mountains that sits on the western borders of china. the gobi desert and waste land sits to the north. There isn't much value in going those places before 1600. within the valuable lands in close proximity to China in east and south asia, China was the unquestioned dominate force.
also i wouldn't say that china's domination of asia is "factually" wrong. if needed, they most definitely could have done whatever the hell they desired in asia. who would have been able to challenge them had they decided to cross the himalayas or further up north? sure it would have been a hard task. even if they failed it wouldn't be a result of an opposing army but rather nature.
|
On September 07 2011 08:48 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 08:27 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 07:20 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 07:08 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 06:59 trucejl wrote:On September 07 2011 03:58 Azarkon wrote:On September 07 2011 02:37 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 15:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:
[quote]
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. A starving army is a fail army. Economic strength translates directly into military strength. Just think about how many wars that had "invincible" armies that lost basically because they had no food to back them up. To put it blunt, no economic = no army. Not many people are willing to fight for you if you can't even feed them. well fed retards > starving fighting machines. you can point out certain anomalies throughout history that may contradict this, but it is accurate 90%+ of the time. I believe what some of these people are trying to point out is that before the major european scientific explosion, china was the most consistently strong country. Obviously nobody can be strong 24/7. Think about it this way if you want, USA has been a strong country since world war I? So that puts it at about 100 years. Compared to some of the chinese dynasties, that's not even worth mentioning. Europe was dominated by different groups of people throughout history while asian has pretty much been dominated by china for the most part. I'm sure people are able to point out random periods of time that either region were weak so doing that is pretty pointless. You simply have to look at the grand scheme of things. For those that argue china not being strong because they didn't dominate people around them hardcore, think about this. If you can basically levy tax in the form of tribute for 0 casualty all the while not having to provide for those people, why the hell wouldn't you do that? Is it better to invade them, kill and rape everything until the natives hate your gut better? What do you gain in that situation? Not to mention the amount of casualty and strain on the people back home providing the food. You are kind of making Asia smaller than it is. Asia as a whole was never dominated by China. Russian Asia, Persia, Near East, India were never really dominated by China. india was separated by the god damn himalayas, that is so impractical to go after that only a retard would. other than india, the rest of those places u mention were all a bit too far to be practical for control also. Russian asia isn't exactly great for the chinese who are used to much warmer weather and what is there to gain that far up north. Persia is way too far away west as soon by the mongols losing control over it rather rapidly. near east? as in japan n korea? they are nonfactors until way way pass 1600. china simply took the tribute from them n didn't bother wasting their time. use comparable things in europe for the roman empire and you'll use the same reason i use to discount your argument. china dominated most of its immediate neighbor for a considerable amount of time. I don't think that is really arguable. they were actually smart in only taking things that they believe they can hold onto for a long time. in star craft terms, its like taking a random base in the middle of no where. sure you might hold it for a while, but eventually you are gunna lose it. as oppose to taking your natural where you will hold onto forever My argument ? What are you talking about ? I just reacted to you saying that China dominated Asia, which is factually wrong. I said nothing about Rome dominating Europe, although they were definitely closer to it than China to domination of Asia, simply because Europe is much smaller. The rest of your post makes no sense as a reaction to what I said. my bad, i just assume you agree with the the previous post about the roman empire comparison. since i quoted things about that i like to respond to the thread as a whole instead of picking a needle out of a haysack and ranting about it. let me rephrase. China dominated most of east and south asia. west asia is pretty impractical because of the himalayas and various mountains that sits on the western borders of china. the gobi desert and waste land sits to the north. There isn't much value in going those places before 1600. within the valuable lands in close proximity to China in east and south asia, China was the unquestioned dominate force. also i wouldn't say that china's domination of asia is "factually" wrong. if needed, they most definitely could have done whatever the hell they desired in asia. who would have been able to challenge them had they decided to cross the himalayas or further up north? sure it would have been a hard task. even if they failed it wouldn't be a result of an opposing army but rather nature.
They had enough problems with their immediate neighbours to actually be able conquer farther territories. There were like 2 or 3 short periods in history where they could and partially did develop sphere of influence in central Asia. There was never any realistic possibility for anything more. They would not be able to send army of any big size into India so big Indian kingdom could easily defeat it. Same goes for Persia in many periods in history. Contrary to what you wrote that Chinese wisely decided not to conquer those territories, it is actually that they could not. If they could they would gladly try it.
|
For everyone who says Hitler, you're sadly mistaken. Hitler was a decent statesman... if you put aside the mass murdering of Jews, blacks, gays, Russians, communists, gypsies, and the whole idea of blonde hair/blue eyes making a person "better." But as a general, he was terrible. He lost the war with England in the first year because he was pissed they bombed Berlin. So, he told Groening to stop bombing airfields and bomb London. As a result, the Brits got their air power back and were able to stop the German invasion attempt. Then, he devoted an extreme amount of transportation into the Holocaust which could have been used to move troops and supplies. And most importantly, he invaded fucking Russia in September and decided not to supply his soldiers with winter supplies. Also, he invaded Russia in the first place.
I think that Washington was the greatest. He went against what was the most powerful nation on Earth, won, and then became a President who was arguably the greatest ever. As a general, you gotta go with Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
