Ancient Capital Cities' architecture of China（3D）

[Pekingboj]

Is it a full video? Do you have in better quality, please? thank

[PakistaniisPower]

Chang an was even bigger than constantinople, richer than alexandria, politically more powerful than roma.

[PakistaniisPower]

From what I studied about the chinese history its save to day that the chinese are great survivalists. They will always rise back up and keep on battling to survive.

[PakistaniisPower]

-China's empire status = 2,133 years. -

Britain's empire status = only 300+ years, Greece enpire status = only 1,000 years, Rome's empire status = only 600 years. The 3 combined = only 1,900 years the chinese empire outlasted all these 3 empires combined.

[theaviribidityofwtr]

btw beijing was NOT an ancient "chinese" capital. It was mostly used during mongol and manchu rule. Times when han chinese were enslaved and brainwashed.

[PakistaniisPower]

@theaviribidityofwtr Irrelevent. The fact that the chinese cilivisation survived against all odds and fought the against whole world and yet still here for thousands of years, that is a powerful feat and even through suffering, they were is still able to built a city that is richer than all of europe combined.

[theaviribidityofwtr]

@yonaguni10000 chinese have rockets what can blast right through those clubersome roman shields. Chinese ships were the first to sail against the wind. Chinese have automatic crossbows. And chinese ppl wiped their ass with toilet paper

[PakistaniisPower]

@theaviribidityofwtr Thats right. At least china didn't invade other nations and wipe out the natives like the europeans did. China never once cross into totally another region of the world and colonize other native, not like the western race.

[Maumeroz]

did the people of han prosper? of course they did, the economic system guarantee the people to trade and the government also helped and supported the peasant

chinese land is often struck by earhtquake so the architecture was made of wood, of course there were stone architecture too.

and what is the basic of saying that roman army is better fighter than the han soldier?

[Maumeroz]

why did the han not built the aqueduct, there is no need to, chinese land is more fertile than that of the romans, the chines did engaged masive project to control the course of the river and the flood.

about the enginering process, the chinese invented even better brick than those of the roman, just clik on the video about xian by dicovery channel here on youtube.

about the technology of the han dynasty just click on wikipedia.

[HioriM]

Good Virtual 3D travel.

[phalluses]

so those hall, as great as it was, was always burn down again and again by lightning. The Supreme Hall of Harmony was burn down 7 times. Why didn't they just build it out of stones?

[RCproductionspoop]

good for a history project im doing

[pianist1015]

可惜現已看不到明清北京城了......

[triggersots4686]

wow so beautiful 5/5, 水晶石 did a great job.......wish theres a HD button though

[OnePeopleOneChina]

This video is about ancient Chinese architecture!

How the heck did you guys get sidetracked into talking about warfare between Romans & Chinese? Geesh!

[PakistaniisPower]

@OnePeopleOneChina Because they are westerners, westerners are pro-war, anti-peace savages

[hand14772]

Alright, point blank- china would have kicked Roman ass in any war.

[minustar]

The power of Rome is just highly overrated by historians who don't have an international knowledge of history, and of course by most people, because of their ignorance and being influenced by hollywood movies...

[Yonaguni10000]

Rome and China were both very powerful and influential in both their spheres. Neither empire would completely dominate the other. Rome was better at civil engineering while the Chinese were better at metallurgy. In terms of theoretical science, both were pretty much equal. As for those who overrate Rome, there are probably as many who overrate China and think that the Han empire was lightyears beyond Europe based on how the Tang and Song were far more advanced than Europe.

[minustar]

No, from the economical and military view China led from 5th century BC to the Napoleon wars. Even in 1820 China was the biggest economy in the world.

[Yonaguni10000]

Militarily, I'd be careful about saying the Han is more powerful than Roman Legions. The Han definitely fielded more soldiers and would be unmatched in ranged warfare. But if the Han would be cut to pieces if they engaged in hand-to-hand combat with legionnaires. So its going to come down to generalship and maneuverability, and which side can best exploit the enemy's weakness and amplify its own strengths. I'd say Han and Romans have equal opportunity of victory over the other

[hand14772]

Yeah yeah, haven't we all heard the story where the romans are just as good if not better than everyone else in school? *yawn*

[Polygunz]

@Yonaguni10000

Tell me which of your Roman generals were more capable or cunning then Cao Cao.

Cao Cao was alive during the Han-Dynasty.

[Polygunz]

@Yonaguni10000

I don't believe superior equipment could be a huge benefactor in achieving victory, but.......

Han-chinese used carbon-steel swords, highly evolved crossbows, steel tipped arrows , developed martial arts called jiao di, superior ballistas called arcuballistas fired multiple 2 or 3 projectiles per shot, steel plated cuirasses, superiorly fast horses from the northen steppes.

[Toggeoland]

And for innovativeness you need freedoom and equality and Europe was remarkable rich on cultures that embraced freedoom and rightful laws in a way that no other continent could compete with. The seed of Europes advantage over the world didnt start with the rennecance, it started thousands of years earlier perhaps with the greeks,

[Toggeoland]

So were the advanced?, by technology no, but by innovativeness yes. And it was the innovativeness that made Europe to the conquerer of the world, not the cruelity.

[Toggeoland]

The scandinavian countries were very backward in most fields, but they were creating metalwork such as bracelets and swords on a artistic level uncompared in the rest of the world at the time, they were building boats that sailed further away than any other have been and in the same time could easily be used for travelling up in very ground rivers.

[Toggeoland]

Take my special field Scandinavia as an example(I am swede thats propbably why:)) and you see that its hard to evaluate a civilization compared to another

[Toggeoland]

A friend of mine from Pakistan asked "You say its it wasnt so dark, so why do the say dark age?" I replied that the dark ages is since long time revalued and Europe where in the late "dark ages" more advanced than most places in the world.

[Toggeoland]

I totally agree with you in there, I get annoyed by people with no historyknowledge that thinks the whole world were more advanced than Europe from the end of the roman age to late rennecance and that Europes success were build only by sucking out the natural resources of peaceloving Africa, India and native Americas.

[Toggeoland]

Overall I would say that the chinese had more technologies at hands but that the romans used what they had and formed an enormous advanced cilization that very well can be compared to that of the chinese.

Art is hard to value, but yes I agree with you that the romans takes home the prize.

[Toggeoland]

I would say that China leaded the world in terms of technology from Qin to about 1550 when the Europeans started to dominate, Europeans dominanted in art and architecture from about 1450 but before that China.

[Yonaguni10000]

China dominated from the collapse of Rome till till the Renaissance. Roman art and architecture and civil engineering was definitely far superior to that of the Han Dynasty.

[Toggeoland]

China clearly dominated during Qin and early Han in allmost all aspects, when it comes to architecture I admit you are right cause the chinese used wood much more than stone compared with the romans and therefor didnt make aqueducts, temples and houses of the same proportions. When it comes to roads the chinese and romans were pretty equal, but in metallurgy the chinese were far more advanced.

[Yonaguni10000]

Yeah Chinese metallurgy was probably significantly more advanced because they had the blast furnace and created higher quality steel. But in terms of building, the Romans also had concrete, allowed them to build on a massive scale. Romans had much of the same technology as the Chinese except blast furnace, paper, and compass. The difference is that European technological development was discontinued leading to the popular conception that the West was backward until the industrial revolution

[Toggeoland]

Yes, they were pretty equal and to compare them in the terms of more and less advanced overall seem doomed to fail. You really have to go in to details for separate comparisions in the different fields.

[minustar]

Chinese military dominated from at least 5th century BC till the napoleon wars.

Stating that roman civil engineering was far superior to that of the Han makes you a total ignorant about Chinese and especially Han history...

[Yonaguni10000]

Far superior might be a bit of an exaggeration, but Roman civil engineering and living standards definitely were higher than that of Chinese. Unless you're telling me that the Han also had massive aqueducts, public baths, indoor central heating, and concrete, then I stand by my point. Much of these benefits were accessible to average citizens, not just the nobility.

[bagins1987]

武后的明堂啊。。可惜付之一炬

[semoscharros]

This video is amazing! As an architecture student, I love it. Background music is perfect; graphics are also good. Could anyone tell me if there are more videos from these guys at 水晶石数字科技 / Crystal CG? I'm eager to watch more!

[jrotc1991]

最愛長安城

[chaod021]

My favoury! Chinese culture leaded the world for more than 18 centuries~~

[bilinmeyen05]

woow:P