Over time, generals found that giving average equipments to a mass group of average soldiers is far more effective than arming a small group of elites with weapons made from the best materials available.
-Elites are soldiers, and like all other, die rather rather quickly when shot by arrows. Hard to train and maintain.
-Performs poorly when being over numbered.
-A simple light cavalry charge can defeat them instantly.
-And top quality armors made little difference compared to average armors.
Could someone tell me about the technologies involved the production of their arms and armor for such vast legions? :/ It's like it's cheap or something.
Did they use mostly boiled leather pieces strung together with sinew or did they all use steel?
@fl333r Their armies are mass and need weapons fast. Spears are considered a mass productive weapon that is easy to make, and light. But dangerous too, so there was no point in using the best wood and steel, since even a poorly made spear can penetrate the average armors with ease given enough energy. Armors were mostly medium or heavy, rarely light. Light armors were utter useless and made little difference in battlefields. Unless the opponent is fighting with rocks and blunted bronze swords.
@mapscraper Its all based on the army. Han had the army to defeat the army type of the Hun's. Rome too, had an army that evolved based on what they fought. Their armors, weapons, tactics are all based on what we fought
@mapscraper ahaha the huns didnt defeat Rome, Rome defeated the Huns, the Huns only caused a great deal of damage of the western roman empire, and the west wasn't at its peack, its armies were barbaric and were no more dominant.
Chinese. Spamming units and blocking out the sun since 778 BC.
This is the best part in the whole movie, besides where Qin Shihuang finds out that Unknown is lying and tells the actual story, orders his execution, then proceeds to unify China....All under one.
The leg-operated Han crosbow had a draw weight of about 400 pounds which was more than enough to bust thru the wooden Roman shield and penetrating a legionaire's metal armor easily and killing him instantly. Plus the Han army had multy-soldier opeated giant crossbows which could discharge multiple huge bolts at once to destroy city walls. The Han also had horse archers who were equiped with both hand-operated crossbows and Hun style recurved composite bows. Romans didn't have a chance.
not so fast, if Romans stay waiting for the rain of heavy qin arrows, you are right ,but I regret to tell you the specialty of the legion was fighting in the open field and against numerically superior enemies, Romans quickly had come to rip the qin army while they were standing or sitting recharging their crossbows, also not as easy for an arrow penetrating a Roman shield and even less to pierce a lorica segmentata, qin arrow probably would have stayed stuck halfway in the Roman shield.
@gueropalma1990 I want you to read about the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. The Roman legions got slaughered by the Parthian horse archers. The Hun-style recurved composite bows that Han troops used were much more powerful than the Parthian bows. Han used rotational firing system, while one rank of crossbowmen fired, the other 3 or 4 ranks were preparing to fire. That means they hat a continuos fire plus they also used the Hun-style recurved composite bows.
the battle of Carrhae is a widely used example for those who underestimate the Roman army, but like yours, forget one very important detail, the Roman army in carrahe was a late-republican consular army, republican doctrine had little to do with the imperial, not used the lorica segmentata neither imperial nor scutum less metallurgical techniques of the high-empire, the very strong roman army exist in since the 1st trough 2nd to the early-mid 3rd century.
also the roman Scutum [shield] was not just a piece of raw wood, was built in complex ways with different layers of various materials of different hardnesses and densities, the scutum was a composite shield, those materials was the kevlar of the ancient world, the lorica segmentata wasnt built simple wrought iron, these plates were forged in a special way to stop piercing weapons such as spears, arrows, javelins and swords.
qin army was not a professional army, only about 30% were professional soldiers, the rest were peasant levies, whereas the Roman legion was 100% professional, highly trained, discplined, fast, strong and flexible, Qin military doctrine was based on the numbers and peasant levies, the Roman doctrine was based on having a high quality army that could defeat a numerically superior enemy, Qin army didnt have chace,
@gueropalma1990 The Chinese crossbows would have had no trouble penetrating the Roman wooden or metal shields and legionaire's metal armor. The leg-operated crossbow had a draw weight of about 400 pounds and the hand-held crossbow had about 200 pounds. On the other hand, the powerful medieval European longbow had a draw weight of about 100 pounds. Plus the Chinese troops had repeating crossbows which could fire a poison tipped bolt per second up to ahout 100 yards.
I insist you're wrong, you again a make a priori rating and generalize the poor equipment used in the battle of carrahe, when in reality I am referring to the legions of high-empire, I have understood that these leg-operated super crossbows it never were used against infantry, but as a siege weapon, were also way too heavy at tactical level was totally useless in the open field.
@gueropalma1990 The Qin state believed in total warfare. This period in Chinese history is called the Warring States Period. More than 7 Chinese states had been fighting each other for more than 500 years by 260 BC. In Qin State there was a core of professional officers and NCOs and a universal conscription. All the able bodied-men had a 2 year military service,1 year of hard training and 1 year of combat. After the discharge from the army, they were required to report to military bases--
talking of compound bows, the compound bows was used by the Romans and took it from syrians and persians, indeed the Roman composite bow belonged to the family of Middle Eastern composite bows, this eastern C-bows belong to the family of Euro-Asiatic steppe c-bows, used by Scytians and Sarmatians. the Romans already use cataphracts since the half of the First century in fact they knew it sicence the republican mid period.
@gueropalma1990 and continue their military training after harvest in the autumn and training lasted untill the planting time in the spring. In essnece, all the Qin state men did was a 6 month of farming and a 6 month of hard military training every year. So what the Qin State had was extremely well-trained entire adult male population. This is the reson why the Qin could keep up to 1 million well-trained, battle-hardened troops. The discipline in Qin army was very strict.
there is no comparison with the 3,4 or 5 years of training of the win tropps with the 20-25 years of service of an imperial legion the vast majority of Qin soldiers never were professional soldiers they were peasant levies, used as a cheap work force the half of the year and doing other non-military activities, the Roman soldiers were soldiers 100% of their time during their 25 year service.
in fact there is no evidence that the Qin or Han had use cataphracts since the Achaemenids and the Parthians never came into conflict as they did with the Romans, the more likely that the Chinese already had a pseudo-copy of cataphracts copied from the heavy indian cavalry, also this were a copy of the cataphracts of Persian and Greek kingdoms of central Asia.
@gueropalma1990 As for the strength of the various bows, let me put it this way, Parthian bow< Hun-style recurved- composite bow< hand-held crossbow< leg-operated crossbow. When the Parthians at the Battle of Carrahae slaughered the Roman legions with their far less powerful bows, the Qin or Han army wouldn't have any problem to decimate the Roman legions. The Han also had cataphracts.
Qin had Bronze Age tech, the Roman legion was amply strong to contain 2-3 times its size format, gladius could easily pierced the bronze age Qin armor,in battle the Romans probably left standing to come seeing a steady rain of arrows,the most likely to come close marching fast with testudo to crush the first qin lines, romans also had various formations techniques combined with the testudo made up to reduce the damage from the rains of arrows, that were the daily bread of the Roman-Persian Wars
if you think that Roman imperial army could be beated with a rain of arrows in a few minutes, you are wrong, basically Roman equipment was adapted to protect against missiles launched from great distances, especially in the legions stationed in the Balkans and Middle East where it was common to both Sarmatians and Parthians always attacked the Romans with bows and cavalry, beacuse face them on foot was suicidal, is not a surprise the level of specialization of the legions against archery units.
@gueropalma1990 The Warring States have many different weapons,, some favored steel, others favored bronze. Specially Qin was famous for not only it's steel technology but also higily developed bronze technology. While Qin Cavarlymen wore steel armor and helmet carried bronze swords and halberds. Qin's superior bronze sword was as tough as tempred steel but flexible enough to absorbe a lot of shock also chrome plated which was not available in the West until the 20th century.
during augustus Roman metallurgy was revolutionized by the use of better templed Noric forged steel,the roman blast furnaces injected appropriate amounts of oxygen to transform iron into hig quality steel resistant to the rust. the Noric steel is the ancestor of the famous Spanish steel, to the end of the century 1 AD, the helmets, greaves and lorica segmentatas were made with noric steel, highly resistant to parthian piercing arrows, clearly qin forged bronze is inferior to the roman steel.
moreover, Qin swords have been found in excellent condition, almost new, beacuse have been preserved very well in tombs of aristocrats, generals and kings, they are weapons that were never used, they were decorative, a simple impact of a roman gladius type mainz or fullham against a Qin straight sword had seriously damaged the qin sword, a lot of Roman gladius were found buried in the wet lands of Britain, France and Italy and are rusty but still solid almost ready to stab.
@gueropalma1990 I''m going to quote from the book, China In World History written by a historian, S.A.M. Adshead. Quote: " while the West could not liquidify and cast iron till the 14th century AD, so that ancient and medieval iron in the West was low-carbon wroght iron. China produced cast-iron hoes,ploughshares,picks,axes and swords from the 4th century BC. This metallurgical superiority both agriculture and war.
@gueropalma1990 Quote continues from China In World History by Adshead. " the Chinese arable farmer, in addition to other advantages,had more and better iron implements than his Roman counterparts.------ it is dougtful if Roman artisians would have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow. Consequently the Han never sufferd Carrhae or Adrianopole.----.
@gueropalma1990 Quote from the book, China In World History, written by Adshead,:" by the Han period the Chinese, starting with cast iron, could produce considerable quantities of good steel by what was , in essence, Bessemer process of oxygenation ( this process was not developed in the West untill the 19th century) while the West, starrting wrought iron could only produce limited amount of POOR steel by heating the iron in charcoal.-- Pliny the Younger spoke admiringly of Chinese steel".
@gueropalma1990 Because of the superiority of metallurge of Qin and Han dynasties. Qin and Han could produce superior weapons, compared to the Roman empire. Man you are wrong again. Qin had the concept of total wars. They had a corp of professional officers and NCOs and soldiers who were supplemented by well-trained, battle-hardened conscripts. Even though Han dynasty went all professional in the Later Han, it still kept the conscription registration, just in case.
you repeat again those false arguments, the Qin never had a professional career soldiers only conscripts, the difference between professional and conscript soldiers its very clear, talkig about the roman metallurgy, again you are wrong, just read what you want to read I recommend you to learn more about the Roman metallurgical industry, which China did not match until the middle of the Han dynasty,
you need to study more and stop repeating phrases Adshead spite of being a good historian it widely knowded that is a crappy sinophile, at least you should read De Re Metallica, after reading it you will see that your arguments are pure shitty fallacies, you will see that the Romans produced more steel and of better quality than Europe and the caliphates together, and europe could not overcome, until the advent of the industrial revolution,
just to give you an idea, in the mid first century AD, the Roman Empire were produced around 83000 tons of iron per year, around the same era, the Han empire only produced about 5000 to 6000 tons of iron per year, to extract minerals the Romans had powerfull techniques such as hydraulic mining, hushing, and more, on metallurgy romans had automatic trip hammers since 30 BC. stop reading nonsense fallacious historians, you know nothing about the Romans, that is obvious.
a further discussion with you is a waste of time, when you really do good debating arguments, we can debate, while, get some good books, not cheap info from wikipedia or pseudo historians like the sinophile sam adshead and his and misinformation about the Romans, who very conveniently use to improve their articles on China in world history. goodbye.
@gueropalma1990 The figures you mentioned about the iron production in the Han Dynasty and the Roman empire is useless..The numbers were originally from a book by David Sim and Isabela Ridge. What they did was ESTIMATING an amount of iron production from certain parts in Britain then applying it to the rest of the empire. Britain was one of the largest iron producing areas in the Roman empire. The authors admitted It was all guess work, had no literary evidence to back up the figures.
@gueropalma1990 Nobody knows exactly how much iron was produced in Han Dynasty or Roman empire. there are very few records to go by. All these figures are nothing but guesses. Just using our common sense we can have a reasonable guess that Han China produced better and MORE iron and steel than the Roman empire because Han could melt iron ore in huge amounts and converting it into large amounts of steel using Besemer method. The Romans didn't have all these advanced technologies.
@gueropalma1990 . The Roman gladius was about 25-30 inch long, on the other hand the Han steel JIN was about 40-56 inch long. The Romans couldn't produce longer swords because their steel was inferior, if the gladius had been any longer than that, it would have bent. Now, you don't want to have a bent sword in the middle of a close-quater combat, do you? Have a wild guess who had the advantage, a Han with a lot longer steel JIN or a Roman witth a lot shorter gladius. I know who.
@DumbHonkie1 I generally agree with your several points on Chinese military/technological superiorities. But I just want to point out that the gladius was 'purposely' made short to enhance the fighting abilities in close combat. Short, double-edged gladius was proven much useful than barbarian long swords because 1. long sword requires a (fair amount of) space to strike/attack. The ancient push of pike style warfare did not provide soldiers enough area to slash their weapons freely.
@korggg123 You made a good point regarding the gladius. The ancient Chinese troops also had gladius-like daggers in addition to long double-edged swords. I truly don't think Romans made their gladius short on purpose. Romans couldn't make longer -unbending swords, because they didn't have the technology to melt the iron ore( making the cast iron) and blowing air into it and make superior steel which could be used in making long unbending swords as the ancient Chinese.did.
@DumbHonkie1 Actually no, if you look at the enemies of Rome, they had long swords, some double and some single. This indicates that the romans did in fact choose to use shorter swords tactically. But in quality, the chinese generals knew that in times of war like this, numbers is far superior to quality. You can spend days trying to perfect a single corp and finding the best material for weapons, but in the end you'll be out paced and that single corp could only kill so little when outnumbered.
@fl333r Well thats not what i meant, because the spartans had a strong advantage of geography. If they were fighting in open enviroments, then they wouldn't be able to perform at their original strength.
@fl333r Yes, an elite soldier may be able to kill a person with instant guaranty that he will win and so on, but if he is fighting 3 at the same time, he will have to defend different fronts. Thus, not allowing him to finish off a guy at a time.
@RomanLegioXx Like if the Han decides to attack the legions head? Then Romans would win.
But if the Romans decide to attack the Han in large scales, then the Han would win.
-Roman tactics is based on a fixed defense and offense through infantry, whereas Han tactics rely on balance of different units, so lots of maneuvering is needed.
-Roman's fixed position brings a stable set victory and defeat. Rely on army training
-Han's constant maneuver brings unstable results. Rely much mor on general
@Jake4595 Both quality and quantity the ancient Chinese military was far ahead of either the Greeks or the Romans,because in crucial technologies such as metallurge, agriculture and many other areas, the ancient China was far more advanced than either the Greeks or the Romans. Europe could not melt iron ore until late 14th century. that meant the Romans made a limited amount of poor quality steel, while China could melt iron ore(starting in the 4th century BC) and make superior steel.
@DumbHonkie1 Yea I agree, another reason why most infantry units had poor armor was because most weapons during that time can pierce through low-medium armors, and so it was either heavy armor or no armor at all. Bows too, can pierce easily en massed. The armors can only help so little, maybe it can save about 13 out of 100 men in a unit, but it would cost them money worth of hundreds of new recruits.
@DumbHonkie1 i think i will have to disagree t«with you my friend, Romans made excellent Armour and weapons, plus they could make curved shields with wood, that pretty good for they´re time. Also, a warrior is not made for what weapons he uses, it is more psychological you see, even if the steel is better for the Chinese, the Romans believed they were superior you see over other country's, in fact very well disciplined and trained they won an empire and made Europa advance.
@DumbHonkie1 and i think it was that mentality of honor and superiority that conquered the Empire.Plus they were very organized and disciplined which makes them a strong opponent.I see the Chinese as"Persians",because they had so many soldiers,and that´s it.They relied on numbers,the Romans on tactics and strategy. There are several accounts of Roman progression in terms of military because it was needed,Gaius Marius Reforms is a good example. Rome would progress if needed.
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote from a book titled, CHINA IN WORLD HISTORYwritten by S.A.M Adshead, a reknowned economy historian: "whle West(Europe) couldn't liquify and cast iron until the 14th century AD, so that all the ancient and medieval iron in the West(Europe) was low-carbon wrought iron, China produced cast-iron hoes,ploughshares,picks,axes, swords from the 4th century BC. This metallurgical superiority affected both agricuuture and WAR".
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote more from Adshead'sbook: " the Chinese foot soldier was better armed and better able to cope with his equestrian opponent than the Roman legionary". " for example, it is dougbtful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow consequently the Han never suffered a Carrhae or an Adrianopole".
@DumbHonkie1 well i guess i will have to accept the fact that china had better steel quality but battles arent won because of Armour and weapons but tatics, surelly that would help but at Carrhae the roman army was commanded by Crassu who wasnt that really great. Alexander the Great maneged to reach India and he surely fought greater numbers, missile and heavy cav.
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote from an article name-d CHINESE WARFARE written by Dr. Ralph Sawyer, a well-respected ancient military historeian: " China's military science was , as in MANY OTHER AREAS, virtually light years ahead of Western(European) practices". "when the Greeks were struggling to escape the confining nature of of the phalanx it's single tactic of the mass collision, China had already perfected numerous formations and methods of deployment". I'm going to quote more.
@RomanLegioXx Continuing the Sawyer's article," China had already perfected numerous formations and methods as well as ann underlying hierarchical organization based on the squad of five that, coupled with precise training methods, allowed articulation, sgmenation, and the excecution of both orthodox and unorthodox tactics" "the Chinese miltary thinkers emphasized a throughly analyctic approach to mounting campaigns and initiating battles, one that stressed training, planning, preparation,"
@RomanLegioXx When the ancient Chinese, specially Han troops were armed with better weapons,and superbly trained , what makes you think the Romans will win? The superior Han troops will make mincemeat out of Roman legions.
@RomanLegioXx Roman armors and tactics are designed to fend off against the brute forces of the barbarians and the well trained phalanxes. But the chinese rely on non of them. They are usually light and prefer skirmishes, like mass missile troops, or mass cavalry. Also, constant war have weakened their training time(thus lack of individual tactics on the battlefield), while the romans have a complete phrase of training. But the generals know what it needs to win.
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote again Dr. Ralph Sawyer a military historian: " discipline( in Chinese miilitary) was extremely strict, with troops bound by mutual responsibility, and intimidated by severe corporal penalties for disobedience or any failure in battlefield performance" "training being through and extensive----even massive campaign forces were capable of segmentation,small unit action,and various deployments on command-- especially the circle,square, horizontal formations".
@RomanLegioXx I'll keep quoting from CHINA IN THE WORLD by Adshead,an economy historian: "so, by the Han period(206BC-220AD) the Chinese, starting with cast iron could produce considerable amounts of good steel by what was,in essence, the Bessemer process of oxygenation(Europe didn't acquire this technology until the 19th century)" "while the West(Europe), starting with wrought iron, could only produce limited amounts of poor steel by heating the iron in charcoal".
@DumbHonkie1 The gladius was designed for quick stab and pull action, resulting in instant death of the opponents; and only the short, double edged sword can do this type of attack. The long sword would require a powerful slash to do an 'effective' damage on the opponent, but this slash style still would not do as much damage on iron/steel armor as stabbing action. This is why Romans favored the method of pushing the opponent with their big shields and stab as they march onward.
@gueropalma1990 Europe could not melt iron ore untill the 14th century. That means the Romans could only produce a very limited amount of poor quality steel by banging the wroght iron.. Don't take my word for it, look it up about cast iron and Bessemer method. Qin had been fighting for 500 years by 260 BC. It had a superb fighing force, pepared for a total war. Universal concription is sometimes better than having a professional army. Just look at the all-coscripted superb Israli army.
@gueropalma1990 Romans didn't have cataphracts. What they had was psudo cataphract- like cavarly in the late 3rd and 4th century. Unlike the Roman empire which had a small number of professional soldiers and the rest of the Roman males were not trained militarily, Qin was prepared for total wars. That meant training every able-bodied male as tough warriors. Qin also had a professional corp of officers and NCOS and soldiers of about 300,000 , suplemented by well-traineed conscripts.
Again you're wrong archeological evidences show that by middle of the first century AD, the R.army had 5 alae cataphractarii stationed in Pannonia and the Middle East for the year 120 had about 25 alaes catapractarii in the reign of Hadrian, the Roman cataphracts second century were the best of all Roman periods as both horse and rider were dressed in full heavy armor and a 4m sarissa, the Roman cataphracts of the 4- 5 century were poorly protected.
you're wrong again, Qin military doctrine was based on peasant levies and only when the state entered the war, soldiers were not professionals, even were not career soldiers, you tell yourself -Conscripts- who may have been "well trained", but never professional soldiers, however since the marian reforms, the Roman army was an army 100% professional, paid, highly trained and well equiped, China never know an a professional army until early-middle Han dynasty.
@gueropalma1990 I'll quote what Ralph Sawer, an expert on ancient military, said about ancient Chinese military and ancient European military: " China's military science was virtually light years ahead of Western practices. China had already perfected numerous formations and methods of deployment as well as underlying heiarchial organization five that, with coupled with precise training metods, allowed articulation, segmentation, amd execution of both orthodox and unorthodox tactics".
@gueropalma1990 Ralph Sayer said" China's military science was,as IN MANY OTHER AREAS, virtually LIGHT YEARS ahead of Western practices, when the Greeks were struggling to escape the confining nature of phalanx and it's single tactic of mass collision.Also the Art of War was written by Sun Tzu in the 5th cntury which is a required book for many of military officers throughout the world. So when you put all these things together the Roman empire didn't have a chance against Qin or Han.
@gueropalma1990 The leg-operated crossbows were used against both iinfanty and cavarly. They were not seige weapons,for that Qin and Han had very powerful trebechets. The very powerful leg-operated and hand-held crossbows could have decimated Roman troops by either going thru their shields and metal armor or hitting the Romans in their very exposed lower legs or arms., Once you are hit you are out of action period, even though you are only wounded. Tesuto is an ideal target. for crossbows.
So wrong period: Chinese didn`t build Great Wall until 1400 AD, they started building it 200 bc, but it was only weak that time. And so eguipment also wasn`t that heavy before it, it was Romans hwo ruled the world befoure 1200, and if they would wanted they could defeat chinese, but not concuere it, they realised their empire is already large enough.
@TheRomanRuler There were many Great Walls. The first Great Wall was built in the 3 centtury BC during Qin dynasty and the 2nd Great Wall was uilt in 2nd century BC during Han dynasty and many more Great Walls afterwards. Most of these Great Walls are gone now. The Great Wall you see now is the Ming Wall that was built in the 15th century. The ancient China was far more technologically advanced than the Roman Empire. The Qin or Han army could have made mincemeat out of Roman legions.
@DumbHonkie1 About wall i agree, but disagree with equipment. Seriouselly, chinese were beaten HUNDREDS times, by huns (and others too, not only huns) and Romans defeated greatest hun warlord ever(attila the hun)... No need to tell hwo were better fighters, Romans or Chinese. Chinese also got bigger armies.
People should open their eyes for fact that Romans were greatest empire during for over 1 000 yers, even Alexander the Great accepted Romans are very good fighters.
@TheRomanRuler You are wrong, man. Yes ,the Huns were powerful at one time but Han dynasty beat them completely by about 150AD. The southern Huns became the vassals of Han dsynasty and trhe northtern Huns were forced to retreat westwards. Eventually the northern Huns showed up in Europe beating not only Germanic tribes but also the Roman Empire. In my opinion the Battle of Chalons was a draw, and after that He invaded Italy and devastated the northen Italy.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia (imo), plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
Why are people debating a imaginary war that never took place thousands of years ago? Even with all the historian research today, everybody is still guessing. It is like guessing whether batman or the spiderman is stronger. It is all fictions at this point and feel free use your own imagination and keep it to yourself... cause we all know it is not true.
i believe both sides were well-trained, but even if the romans defeated qin, which is unlikely to happen, the romans would have to battle the other 6 states that were in china at the time
@TheRice12345 Qin's army was a bunch of peasants that were conscripted. Their equipment and weapons were far from the "soldiers" that are describing in this clip. So Qin's peasants would never match with professional army that Roman had. The only thing that could beat Roman's legions were mobility and shock ie. Calvary and elephants which Qin did not have.
@ngocquang19877 part of the reason (imo) why they beat the other 6 countries in ancient china. btw if you are an euro-centric/white-supremacist this might make you feel a bit better, i don't think ancient qin ppl resemble modern day orientals as ppl believe nowadays. i think they were sinocized euro-asians. qin ppl used to be on the western edge bordering nomads and breeding horses for zhou dynasty.
@x1altair I think you are wrong . Most of Qin people were Han Chinese. However there was a normadic tribe called Rong who might have been related to Mongols or Huns. The Rong tribe was not related to any of the Europeans. This period is called the Warring States' Period in Chinese history. At this time China was far more advanced than the Greeks or Romans. Also Qin was a very militaristic state. The Qin army could have made mince meat out of the Alexander's army or Roman legions.
@DumbHonkie1 秦人是馬背上的部族 but they of course are chinese. 90%+ of chinese are han.. Just think about it with some logic, there's over a billionaire of " han" while the rest of the population in the world are made up by the other couple hundred of races. Wow hans must fuck like rabbits, why not the french with 1 billionaire ppl or the egyptians with a billion ppl? China aka the middle kingdom has always been the united nation of asia, it had great diversity among itself culturally and ethnically.
@DumbHonkie1 the sarcasm was not about the population of china, it was about ppl's misconception of chinese as a single race. btw, i think if a person were to tell qin emperor or his soliders that they were "han", i think his tongue would have been cut off to say the least.
@x1altair The concept of being "Han" came much later. Han dynasty did not even exist in 260bc. It seems to be even the people of Han dynasty didn't call themselves as Han. I think the concept of using the word Han came much much later.
@x1altair Of course I realize that in the process of making "Han" Chinese nation, many other Asian ethnic groups have been assimilated both genetically and culturally. I can see there are genetic differences even among Han Chinese( just look at the physical difference between the northen Chinese and the southern Chinese)., In my opinion the term Han Chinese makes more sense in the cultural terms rather than in terms of genetics.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@x1altair There is no similarity in comparison.The Qin,Zhao,Qi etc are actually Dukedoms!At that time,the Chinese were already one Empire based on feudalism. There was a dynasty (Zhou),then degenerated into chaos as the Hegemon lost political control.Qin is considered the first true empire cuz it implemented central control n bureaucratic systems,unlike a hegemony.The Chinese are mostly one people.Han ppl go by that name cuz the Han Dyn. was the first golden age where China flourished.
@x1altair It was the Han Dynasty which introduced meritocracy and Imperial Exams to select bureaucrats,governors,when there was relative peace and cultural advancements.The improvement to the lives and welfare of the general populace was tremendous, thus creating a lasting impression. Although the dukes and feudalism were not entirely abolished, the power of the warlords diminished greatly, civil war was not to come until a few centuries later. (China is always its own enemy)
@x1altair All these dynastic successions are merely power struggles between internal factions, not assimilation of significantly different cultures. Granted, each locale of China has its minor differences, but the underlying culture is thousands of years old. (Han dynasty was huge already) The preceding Xia and Shang were sizable too. Do you think all the cities in your country have the exact same culture? America is a child by comparison, what 300 years old?
@x1altair And as for the part about Qin army vs others...Crossbows,ballistas,hard iron weapons made from blast furnaces,occasionally some steel(expensive),a million soldiers supported by 10million peasants with advanced agricultural techniques & fertile land(making 10x food Europeans do) and a central command more draconian than you can imagine,military treatises and tactics developed still in print and usage today (Art of War), all existing before caesar's time, what more can you say?
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
@ngocquang19877 You dont know squad about Qin dynasty. Under the law, most of the men were trained in military with excellent combat skills and strategy. They had nothing to do but fight or plant since no entertainments allowed for them. to a warrior, how many people they killed directly related to their wealth and status, so they were always driven to kill. Go check out some actual fact about Qin before spreading your word as a euro-centric blabbing white or whatever.
Another thing, research the engineering accomplishments of ancient china builders..you might be surprise at what you will find. Ancient china's greatest enemy was' itself' for believing they could never be beaten. Read about the treasure ships. You might sh it yourself. suggestive read' 1421' I am not chinese, but i am a student of history. Persians were nothing. Roman was great. but it never face the Armies of Qin. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. We have an empire now, USA.
reading your posts....you guys even research history and understand what weapons they used? Flame throwers,bombs,rockets, metal that roman didn't know how to make?..etc. seriously? guys? They had super bows that shot over a mile. China was a great empire that closed itself out to the world. The inventions that china took for granted went to Europe and it came back to enslave them. examples, horse stirup...seems harmless...but horse stirup made heavy cavarly possible, steel, gun powder..etc.
imagine rome were to last to this day, half of the white ppl would have roman on their passport just like over half of the asian ppl are chinese. its a cultrual unity, not a race. china was much more diverse in ancient times, but there days almost every chinese considers himself a han.
@x1altair No, not really. China was in its own land. Never took over neighboring lands. If we did, we would control what is known today as Japan, Korean, and pretty much Southeast Asia.
@8701803 The fuck you talking about? This is Qin dynasty formed 221BC after Warring states period 500BC which came from Zhou Dynasty which came from Shang Dynasty 1900BC. Chinese were not just picking rice before 260BC. Bronze age came during Shang Dynasty dumbass. The Chinese have the largest bronze artifact in the world. Read up on world history before you make yourself look retarded. You probaly failed World history why bother stupid fuck.
@8701803 are you serious? do you know one of three great war book also the oldest one was written in 500bc in China? Maybe you just keep picking your nose and scratching your ass.
I don't know where you those numbers, but you should think through it: no one can maintain a 1.5 million professional army from 1.5% of the GDP, that is very ridicoulos, because it assumes almost infinite high GDP, or that professional means a peasant with stick.
the roman empire, during the pax romana was Giant,Rich and Powerfull i do not know where these guys, who says that the Roman Empire had few soldiers, and a weak economy,according to estimates, the GDP of the Roman Empire in middle 2nd century AD, was about about 75-80 billion of dollars [1990], this makes Roman empire of those days are richer than the Ottoman Empire or Portuguese one in their days of glory, by comparing the Roman Empire were almost rich as the Mughal Empire.
@tatararpad Well, China's GDP for most of its 5,000 years of history has always been between 30% to 50% (half) of the world's total GDP. A 1.5 million men army is hardly surprising, given its size and well-developed bureaucracy and manufacturing.
@lovehomelandchina Yeah, but if craftsman's weapon fail and failure leads to balls being shot with arrow...I would be pretty pissed at craftsman...and the Chinese would do some hardcore shit like kill his whole family...once again China, damn...you scary
In Qin's era, every weapon was scirbed with craftman's name, if failure, the craftman's whole family (his side, his wife's side, his mother's side) would be put into death. You got to respect the craftman's skills.
@ComradeMing I never mentioned the Indians in my previous comment. Need a pair of glasses? Or maybe you are just continuing your childish remarks? Probably the second. Romans are gone. True. Them Chinese soldiers and that advanced race that lived in China at that time is also gone... btw.
@ComradeMing proved right again. 12 yrs or less. stop playing with yourself. Take ur finger out of ur mama's ass and grow up. Vikings, Normans, Romans, Greeks, English, Slavs... Europeans... free people. No commies. thanks to our freedom of speech, u can even use the internet. oh, i see. u r protecting urself cos other commies can check what u do on the net? oh... how sad. 1 more thing - fuck off child and talk to me only when u grow hairs on your balls.
I would like to apologise for some rough language i have to use here, but some people just do not have the brains to have a normal civilised conversation and still live in the dark ages - like ComradeMing. There are actually some normal people here who would be interesting to converse with, pity some people do not have the necessary amount of brain cells needed to amongst others of the human race.
@ComradeMing Asshole - i am English not ukrainian. i'm temp living here only, working. AND i am half italian. Of course u will find smth to say about UK, Italy and so on. (i dont give a shit about commy assholes' opinions).. that's what commy assholes do - insult civilised ppl. Ukrainians r cool ppl asshole. U, asshole, r a commy piece of shit. By the way, grow up. What r u 12 yrs old? still mastubating using ur mama's panties? Commy... beware, judgement day is coming.
@ComradeMing Piece of shit? So that's where you're going... Listen, u lifeless deflated prick, peewee cock sucking wanker! Listen, comrade... Commy days are over and countries thinking they can go on living in commy fantasy world will get a wake call soon enough. If u don't like my comments, u can come and blow me cos we live in an almost completely free world and i will post whatever the fuck i fucking well want to. By the way, tell your mama to stop begging me to do her.
@ComradeMing different time periods? Caesar's legions plus Remi horse (Gaul) and German horsemen (which he personally bought Remi horses for)? What are you talking about? All the troops i mentioned were part of Caesar's army... Please inform yourself before making comments mate.
chinese were the first to invent "total war". every person in a nation works for the military and the war, there is no difference between soldiers and citizens, all meshed into one
The Qin society was almost like the Spartan society of the east as compared to the rest of the kingdoms in China, highly militarised and very unforgiving.
Worse than that. That looked down by other warring states, unable and dislike farmings, constantly interacting with Huns and very tough law made joining the army the only way for Qins to survive, the only way to have food was by killing at least one enemy soldier, by killing more could upgrade him to a low rank noble, aka family members could survive by his performance in the army.
you are funny , how can you use a army in past to compare with a army in modern ? I just know one thing , in Qin , a student in 8 years old learn how to kill a adult , compare in western in same period , they just learn how to make a fire .
Over time, generals found that giving average equipments to a mass group of average soldiers is far more effective than arming a small group of elites with weapons made from the best materials available.
-Elites are soldiers, and like all other, die rather rather quickly when shot by arrows. Hard to train and maintain.
-Performs poorly when being over numbered.
-A simple light cavalry charge can defeat them instantly.
-And top quality armors made little difference compared to average armors.
Jake4595 2 days ago
qin u suck
alexc8116 3 days ago
nice
alexc8116 3 days ago
Could someone tell me about the technologies involved the production of their arms and armor for such vast legions? :/ It's like it's cheap or something.
Did they use mostly boiled leather pieces strung together with sinew or did they all use steel?
fl333r 6 days ago
@fl333r Their armies are mass and need weapons fast. Spears are considered a mass productive weapon that is easy to make, and light. But dangerous too, so there was no point in using the best wood and steel, since even a poorly made spear can penetrate the average armors with ease given enough energy. Armors were mostly medium or heavy, rarely light. Light armors were utter useless and made little difference in battlefields. Unless the opponent is fighting with rocks and blunted bronze swords.
Jake4595 2 days ago
finally, han china defeat Huns which inturn destroyed west rome.
and Tang china defeat turks which inturn destroy east rome.
mapscraper 1 week ago
@mapscraper Its all based on the army. Han had the army to defeat the army type of the Hun's. Rome too, had an army that evolved based on what they fought. Their armors, weapons, tactics are all based on what we fought
Jake4595 1 week ago
@mapscraper ahaha the huns didnt defeat Rome, Rome defeated the Huns, the Huns only caused a great deal of damage of the western roman empire, and the west wasn't at its peack, its armies were barbaric and were no more dominant.
RomanLegioXx 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what do chinese think of koreans
VanillaSnow23 1 week ago
Chinese. Spamming units and blocking out the sun since 778 BC.
This is the best part in the whole movie, besides where Qin Shihuang finds out that Unknown is lying and tells the actual story, orders his execution, then proceeds to unify China....All under one.
BM309K58SMERCH 3 weeks ago
"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion."
- Alexander the Great
I guess this shows my opinion about the Chinese, and of the Romans!
RomanLegioXx 3 weeks ago 2
@RomanLegioXx Whoa. That as enlightening.
fl333r 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:45
HALLLT
ARCH!
gnoynix1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gnoynix1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans and Chinese had a war at 36 B.C.
Just Google “A Roman Legion in China”
funhoo 3 weeks ago
Google “A Roman Legion in China”
this is the truth
funhoo 3 weeks ago
@funhoo Thanks!
fl333r 1 week ago
And thats why the Romans had a Testudo formation.
SpadaccinoLuciano 4 weeks ago
The leg-operated Han crosbow had a draw weight of about 400 pounds which was more than enough to bust thru the wooden Roman shield and penetrating a legionaire's metal armor easily and killing him instantly. Plus the Han army had multy-soldier opeated giant crossbows which could discharge multiple huge bolts at once to destroy city walls. The Han also had horse archers who were equiped with both hand-operated crossbows and Hun style recurved composite bows. Romans didn't have a chance.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
not so fast, if Romans stay waiting for the rain of heavy qin arrows, you are right ,but I regret to tell you the specialty of the legion was fighting in the open field and against numerically superior enemies, Romans quickly had come to rip the qin army while they were standing or sitting recharging their crossbows, also not as easy for an arrow penetrating a Roman shield and even less to pierce a lorica segmentata, qin arrow probably would have stayed stuck halfway in the Roman shield.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 I want you to read about the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. The Roman legions got slaughered by the Parthian horse archers. The Hun-style recurved composite bows that Han troops used were much more powerful than the Parthian bows. Han used rotational firing system, while one rank of crossbowmen fired, the other 3 or 4 ranks were preparing to fire. That means they hat a continuos fire plus they also used the Hun-style recurved composite bows.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
the battle of Carrhae is a widely used example for those who underestimate the Roman army, but like yours, forget one very important detail, the Roman army in carrahe was a late-republican consular army, republican doctrine had little to do with the imperial, not used the lorica segmentata neither imperial nor scutum less metallurgical techniques of the high-empire, the very strong roman army exist in since the 1st trough 2nd to the early-mid 3rd century.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
also the roman Scutum [shield] was not just a piece of raw wood, was built in complex ways with different layers of various materials of different hardnesses and densities, the scutum was a composite shield, those materials was the kevlar of the ancient world, the lorica segmentata wasnt built simple wrought iron, these plates were forged in a special way to stop piercing weapons such as spears, arrows, javelins and swords.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
qin army was not a professional army, only about 30% were professional soldiers, the rest were peasant levies, whereas the Roman legion was 100% professional, highly trained, discplined, fast, strong and flexible, Qin military doctrine was based on the numbers and peasant levies, the Roman doctrine was based on having a high quality army that could defeat a numerically superior enemy, Qin army didnt have chace,
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 The Chinese crossbows would have had no trouble penetrating the Roman wooden or metal shields and legionaire's metal armor. The leg-operated crossbow had a draw weight of about 400 pounds and the hand-held crossbow had about 200 pounds. On the other hand, the powerful medieval European longbow had a draw weight of about 100 pounds. Plus the Chinese troops had repeating crossbows which could fire a poison tipped bolt per second up to ahout 100 yards.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
I insist you're wrong, you again a make a priori rating and generalize the poor equipment used in the battle of carrahe, when in reality I am referring to the legions of high-empire, I have understood that these leg-operated super crossbows it never were used against infantry, but as a siege weapon, were also way too heavy at tactical level was totally useless in the open field.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 The Qin state believed in total warfare. This period in Chinese history is called the Warring States Period. More than 7 Chinese states had been fighting each other for more than 500 years by 260 BC. In Qin State there was a core of professional officers and NCOs and a universal conscription. All the able bodied-men had a 2 year military service,1 year of hard training and 1 year of combat. After the discharge from the army, they were required to report to military bases--
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
talking of compound bows, the compound bows was used by the Romans and took it from syrians and persians, indeed the Roman composite bow belonged to the family of Middle Eastern composite bows, this eastern C-bows belong to the family of Euro-Asiatic steppe c-bows, used by Scytians and Sarmatians. the Romans already use cataphracts since the half of the First century in fact they knew it sicence the republican mid period.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 and continue their military training after harvest in the autumn and training lasted untill the planting time in the spring. In essnece, all the Qin state men did was a 6 month of farming and a 6 month of hard military training every year. So what the Qin State had was extremely well-trained entire adult male population. This is the reson why the Qin could keep up to 1 million well-trained, battle-hardened troops. The discipline in Qin army was very strict.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
there is no comparison with the 3,4 or 5 years of training of the win tropps with the 20-25 years of service of an imperial legion the vast majority of Qin soldiers never were professional soldiers they were peasant levies, used as a cheap work force the half of the year and doing other non-military activities, the Roman soldiers were soldiers 100% of their time during their 25 year service.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
in fact there is no evidence that the Qin or Han had use cataphracts since the Achaemenids and the Parthians never came into conflict as they did with the Romans, the more likely that the Chinese already had a pseudo-copy of cataphracts copied from the heavy indian cavalry, also this were a copy of the cataphracts of Persian and Greek kingdoms of central Asia.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 As for the strength of the various bows, let me put it this way, Parthian bow< Hun-style recurved- composite bow< hand-held crossbow< leg-operated crossbow. When the Parthians at the Battle of Carrahae slaughered the Roman legions with their far less powerful bows, the Qin or Han army wouldn't have any problem to decimate the Roman legions. The Han also had cataphracts.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
Comment removed
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Qin had Bronze Age tech, the Roman legion was amply strong to contain 2-3 times its size format, gladius could easily pierced the bronze age Qin armor,in battle the Romans probably left standing to come seeing a steady rain of arrows,the most likely to come close marching fast with testudo to crush the first qin lines, romans also had various formations techniques combined with the testudo made up to reduce the damage from the rains of arrows, that were the daily bread of the Roman-Persian Wars
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
if you think that Roman imperial army could be beated with a rain of arrows in a few minutes, you are wrong, basically Roman equipment was adapted to protect against missiles launched from great distances, especially in the legions stationed in the Balkans and Middle East where it was common to both Sarmatians and Parthians always attacked the Romans with bows and cavalry, beacuse face them on foot was suicidal, is not a surprise the level of specialization of the legions against archery units.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 The Warring States have many different weapons,, some favored steel, others favored bronze. Specially Qin was famous for not only it's steel technology but also higily developed bronze technology. While Qin Cavarlymen wore steel armor and helmet carried bronze swords and halberds. Qin's superior bronze sword was as tough as tempred steel but flexible enough to absorbe a lot of shock also chrome plated which was not available in the West until the 20th century.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
during augustus Roman metallurgy was revolutionized by the use of better templed Noric forged steel,the roman blast furnaces injected appropriate amounts of oxygen to transform iron into hig quality steel resistant to the rust. the Noric steel is the ancestor of the famous Spanish steel, to the end of the century 1 AD, the helmets, greaves and lorica segmentatas were made with noric steel, highly resistant to parthian piercing arrows, clearly qin forged bronze is inferior to the roman steel.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
moreover, Qin swords have been found in excellent condition, almost new, beacuse have been preserved very well in tombs of aristocrats, generals and kings, they are weapons that were never used, they were decorative, a simple impact of a roman gladius type mainz or fullham against a Qin straight sword had seriously damaged the qin sword, a lot of Roman gladius were found buried in the wet lands of Britain, France and Italy and are rusty but still solid almost ready to stab.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 I''m going to quote from the book, China In World History written by a historian, S.A.M. Adshead. Quote: " while the West could not liquidify and cast iron till the 14th century AD, so that ancient and medieval iron in the West was low-carbon wroght iron. China produced cast-iron hoes,ploughshares,picks,axes and swords from the 4th century BC. This metallurgical superiority both agriculture and war.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 Quote continues from China In World History by Adshead. " the Chinese arable farmer, in addition to other advantages,had more and better iron implements than his Roman counterparts.------ it is dougtful if Roman artisians would have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow. Consequently the Han never sufferd Carrhae or Adrianopole.----.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 Quote from the book, China In World History, written by Adshead,:" by the Han period the Chinese, starting with cast iron, could produce considerable quantities of good steel by what was , in essence, Bessemer process of oxygenation ( this process was not developed in the West untill the 19th century) while the West, starrting wrought iron could only produce limited amount of POOR steel by heating the iron in charcoal.-- Pliny the Younger spoke admiringly of Chinese steel".
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 Because of the superiority of metallurge of Qin and Han dynasties. Qin and Han could produce superior weapons, compared to the Roman empire. Man you are wrong again. Qin had the concept of total wars. They had a corp of professional officers and NCOs and soldiers who were supplemented by well-trained, battle-hardened conscripts. Even though Han dynasty went all professional in the Later Han, it still kept the conscription registration, just in case.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
you repeat again those false arguments, the Qin never had a professional career soldiers only conscripts, the difference between professional and conscript soldiers its very clear, talkig about the roman metallurgy, again you are wrong, just read what you want to read I recommend you to learn more about the Roman metallurgical industry, which China did not match until the middle of the Han dynasty,
gueropalma1990 4 weeks ago
you need to study more and stop repeating phrases Adshead spite of being a good historian it widely knowded that is a crappy sinophile, at least you should read De Re Metallica, after reading it you will see that your arguments are pure shitty fallacies, you will see that the Romans produced more steel and of better quality than Europe and the caliphates together, and europe could not overcome, until the advent of the industrial revolution,
gueropalma1990 4 weeks ago
just to give you an idea, in the mid first century AD, the Roman Empire were produced around 83000 tons of iron per year, around the same era, the Han empire only produced about 5000 to 6000 tons of iron per year, to extract minerals the Romans had powerfull techniques such as hydraulic mining, hushing, and more, on metallurgy romans had automatic trip hammers since 30 BC. stop reading nonsense fallacious historians, you know nothing about the Romans, that is obvious.
gueropalma1990 4 weeks ago
a further discussion with you is a waste of time, when you really do good debating arguments, we can debate, while, get some good books, not cheap info from wikipedia or pseudo historians like the sinophile sam adshead and his and misinformation about the Romans, who very conveniently use to improve their articles on China in world history. goodbye.
gueropalma1990 4 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 The figures you mentioned about the iron production in the Han Dynasty and the Roman empire is useless..The numbers were originally from a book by David Sim and Isabela Ridge. What they did was ESTIMATING an amount of iron production from certain parts in Britain then applying it to the rest of the empire. Britain was one of the largest iron producing areas in the Roman empire. The authors admitted It was all guess work, had no literary evidence to back up the figures.
DumbHonkie1 4 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 Nobody knows exactly how much iron was produced in Han Dynasty or Roman empire. there are very few records to go by. All these figures are nothing but guesses. Just using our common sense we can have a reasonable guess that Han China produced better and MORE iron and steel than the Roman empire because Han could melt iron ore in huge amounts and converting it into large amounts of steel using Besemer method. The Romans didn't have all these advanced technologies.
DumbHonkie1 4 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 . The Roman gladius was about 25-30 inch long, on the other hand the Han steel JIN was about 40-56 inch long. The Romans couldn't produce longer swords because their steel was inferior, if the gladius had been any longer than that, it would have bent. Now, you don't want to have a bent sword in the middle of a close-quater combat, do you? Have a wild guess who had the advantage, a Han with a lot longer steel JIN or a Roman witth a lot shorter gladius. I know who.
DumbHonkie1 4 weeks ago
@DumbHonkie1 I generally agree with your several points on Chinese military/technological superiorities. But I just want to point out that the gladius was 'purposely' made short to enhance the fighting abilities in close combat. Short, double-edged gladius was proven much useful than barbarian long swords because 1. long sword requires a (fair amount of) space to strike/attack. The ancient push of pike style warfare did not provide soldiers enough area to slash their weapons freely.
korggg123 2 weeks ago
@korggg123 You made a good point regarding the gladius. The ancient Chinese troops also had gladius-like daggers in addition to long double-edged swords. I truly don't think Romans made their gladius short on purpose. Romans couldn't make longer -unbending swords, because they didn't have the technology to melt the iron ore( making the cast iron) and blowing air into it and make superior steel which could be used in making long unbending swords as the ancient Chinese.did.
DumbHonkie1 2 weeks ago
@DumbHonkie1 Actually no, if you look at the enemies of Rome, they had long swords, some double and some single. This indicates that the romans did in fact choose to use shorter swords tactically. But in quality, the chinese generals knew that in times of war like this, numbers is far superior to quality. You can spend days trying to perfect a single corp and finding the best material for weapons, but in the end you'll be out paced and that single corp could only kill so little when outnumbered.
Jake4595 1 week ago
@Jake4595 But look at Thermopolae! :D You, know, what with Sparta.
But yeah, you're right. Numbers will overwhelm anything if large enough... Quantity over quality?
fl333r 1 week ago
@fl333r Well thats not what i meant, because the spartans had a strong advantage of geography. If they were fighting in open enviroments, then they wouldn't be able to perform at their original strength.
Jake4595 1 week ago
@Jake4595 Ah... I see. But it's the same with any army, no?
fl333r 1 week ago
@fl333r Yes, an elite soldier may be able to kill a person with instant guaranty that he will win and so on, but if he is fighting 3 at the same time, he will have to defend different fronts. Thus, not allowing him to finish off a guy at a time.
Jake4595 1 week ago
@Jake4595 lets put this into a diferent perspective, what if the romans had the same steel quality of the chinese, what d you say? han or Rome?
RomanLegioXx 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx Like if the Han decides to attack the legions head? Then Romans would win.
But if the Romans decide to attack the Han in large scales, then the Han would win.
-Roman tactics is based on a fixed defense and offense through infantry, whereas Han tactics rely on balance of different units, so lots of maneuvering is needed.
-Roman's fixed position brings a stable set victory and defeat. Rely on army training
-Han's constant maneuver brings unstable results. Rely much mor on general
Jake4595 1 week ago
@Jake4595 Both quality and quantity the ancient Chinese military was far ahead of either the Greeks or the Romans,because in crucial technologies such as metallurge, agriculture and many other areas, the ancient China was far more advanced than either the Greeks or the Romans. Europe could not melt iron ore until late 14th century. that meant the Romans made a limited amount of poor quality steel, while China could melt iron ore(starting in the 4th century BC) and make superior steel.
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@DumbHonkie1 Yea I agree, another reason why most infantry units had poor armor was because most weapons during that time can pierce through low-medium armors, and so it was either heavy armor or no armor at all. Bows too, can pierce easily en massed. The armors can only help so little, maybe it can save about 13 out of 100 men in a unit, but it would cost them money worth of hundreds of new recruits.
Jake4595 1 week ago
@DumbHonkie1 i think i will have to disagree t«with you my friend, Romans made excellent Armour and weapons, plus they could make curved shields with wood, that pretty good for they´re time. Also, a warrior is not made for what weapons he uses, it is more psychological you see, even if the steel is better for the Chinese, the Romans believed they were superior you see over other country's, in fact very well disciplined and trained they won an empire and made Europa advance.
RomanLegioXx 1 week ago
@DumbHonkie1 and i think it was that mentality of honor and superiority that conquered the Empire.Plus they were very organized and disciplined which makes them a strong opponent.I see the Chinese as"Persians",because they had so many soldiers,and that´s it.They relied on numbers,the Romans on tactics and strategy. There are several accounts of Roman progression in terms of military because it was needed,Gaius Marius Reforms is a good example. Rome would progress if needed.
RomanLegioXx 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote from a book titled, CHINA IN WORLD HISTORYwritten by S.A.M Adshead, a reknowned economy historian: "whle West(Europe) couldn't liquify and cast iron until the 14th century AD, so that all the ancient and medieval iron in the West(Europe) was low-carbon wrought iron, China produced cast-iron hoes,ploughshares,picks,axes, swords from the 4th century BC. This metallurgical superiority affected both agricuuture and WAR".
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote more from Adshead'sbook: " the Chinese foot soldier was better armed and better able to cope with his equestrian opponent than the Roman legionary". " for example, it is dougbtful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow consequently the Han never suffered a Carrhae or an Adrianopole".
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@DumbHonkie1 well i guess i will have to accept the fact that china had better steel quality but battles arent won because of Armour and weapons but tatics, surelly that would help but at Carrhae the roman army was commanded by Crassu who wasnt that really great. Alexander the Great maneged to reach India and he surely fought greater numbers, missile and heavy cav.
RomanLegioXx 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote from an article name-d CHINESE WARFARE written by Dr. Ralph Sawyer, a well-respected ancient military historeian: " China's military science was , as in MANY OTHER AREAS, virtually light years ahead of Western(European) practices". "when the Greeks were struggling to escape the confining nature of of the phalanx it's single tactic of the mass collision, China had already perfected numerous formations and methods of deployment". I'm going to quote more.
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx Continuing the Sawyer's article," China had already perfected numerous formations and methods as well as ann underlying hierarchical organization based on the squad of five that, coupled with precise training methods, allowed articulation, sgmenation, and the excecution of both orthodox and unorthodox tactics" "the Chinese miltary thinkers emphasized a throughly analyctic approach to mounting campaigns and initiating battles, one that stressed training, planning, preparation,"
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@DumbHonkiethat article seems interesting, doe it say something regarding the roman empire? I believe it would be a very big clash, Rome could win.
RomanLegioXx 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx When the ancient Chinese, specially Han troops were armed with better weapons,and superbly trained , what makes you think the Romans will win? The superior Han troops will make mincemeat out of Roman legions.
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx Roman armors and tactics are designed to fend off against the brute forces of the barbarians and the well trained phalanxes. But the chinese rely on non of them. They are usually light and prefer skirmishes, like mass missile troops, or mass cavalry. Also, constant war have weakened their training time(thus lack of individual tactics on the battlefield), while the romans have a complete phrase of training. But the generals know what it needs to win.
Jake4595 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx I'm going to quote again Dr. Ralph Sawyer a military historian: " discipline( in Chinese miilitary) was extremely strict, with troops bound by mutual responsibility, and intimidated by severe corporal penalties for disobedience or any failure in battlefield performance" "training being through and extensive----even massive campaign forces were capable of segmentation,small unit action,and various deployments on command-- especially the circle,square, horizontal formations".
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@RomanLegioXx I'll keep quoting from CHINA IN THE WORLD by Adshead,an economy historian: "so, by the Han period(206BC-220AD) the Chinese, starting with cast iron could produce considerable amounts of good steel by what was,in essence, the Bessemer process of oxygenation(Europe didn't acquire this technology until the 19th century)" "while the West(Europe), starting with wrought iron, could only produce limited amounts of poor steel by heating the iron in charcoal".
DumbHonkie1 1 week ago
@DumbHonkie1 Cool! I'll have to remember this... thanks!
fl333r 1 week ago
Comment removed
korggg123 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 The gladius was designed for quick stab and pull action, resulting in instant death of the opponents; and only the short, double edged sword can do this type of attack. The long sword would require a powerful slash to do an 'effective' damage on the opponent, but this slash style still would not do as much damage on iron/steel armor as stabbing action. This is why Romans favored the method of pushing the opponent with their big shields and stab as they march onward.
korggg123 2 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 Europe could not melt iron ore untill the 14th century. That means the Romans could only produce a very limited amount of poor quality steel by banging the wroght iron.. Don't take my word for it, look it up about cast iron and Bessemer method. Qin had been fighting for 500 years by 260 BC. It had a superb fighing force, pepared for a total war. Universal concription is sometimes better than having a professional army. Just look at the all-coscripted superb Israli army.
DumbHonkie1 4 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 Who wants to guess you made up those facts?
GRENTHSNOOB 3 weeks ago
@gueropalma1990 Romans didn't have cataphracts. What they had was psudo cataphract- like cavarly in the late 3rd and 4th century. Unlike the Roman empire which had a small number of professional soldiers and the rest of the Roman males were not trained militarily, Qin was prepared for total wars. That meant training every able-bodied male as tough warriors. Qin also had a professional corp of officers and NCOS and soldiers of about 300,000 , suplemented by well-traineed conscripts.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
Again you're wrong archeological evidences show that by middle of the first century AD, the R.army had 5 alae cataphractarii stationed in Pannonia and the Middle East for the year 120 had about 25 alaes catapractarii in the reign of Hadrian, the Roman cataphracts second century were the best of all Roman periods as both horse and rider were dressed in full heavy armor and a 4m sarissa, the Roman cataphracts of the 4- 5 century were poorly protected.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
you're wrong again, Qin military doctrine was based on peasant levies and only when the state entered the war, soldiers were not professionals, even were not career soldiers, you tell yourself -Conscripts- who may have been "well trained", but never professional soldiers, however since the marian reforms, the Roman army was an army 100% professional, paid, highly trained and well equiped, China never know an a professional army until early-middle Han dynasty.
gueropalma1990 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 I'll quote what Ralph Sawer, an expert on ancient military, said about ancient Chinese military and ancient European military: " China's military science was virtually light years ahead of Western practices. China had already perfected numerous formations and methods of deployment as well as underlying heiarchial organization five that, with coupled with precise training metods, allowed articulation, segmentation, amd execution of both orthodox and unorthodox tactics".
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 Ralph Sayer said" China's military science was,as IN MANY OTHER AREAS, virtually LIGHT YEARS ahead of Western practices, when the Greeks were struggling to escape the confining nature of phalanx and it's single tactic of mass collision.Also the Art of War was written by Sun Tzu in the 5th cntury which is a required book for many of military officers throughout the world. So when you put all these things together the Roman empire didn't have a chance against Qin or Han.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@gueropalma1990 The leg-operated crossbows were used against both iinfanty and cavarly. They were not seige weapons,for that Qin and Han had very powerful trebechets. The very powerful leg-operated and hand-held crossbows could have decimated Roman troops by either going thru their shields and metal armor or hitting the Romans in their very exposed lower legs or arms., Once you are hit you are out of action period, even though you are only wounded. Tesuto is an ideal target. for crossbows.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
So wrong period: Chinese didn`t build Great Wall until 1400 AD, they started building it 200 bc, but it was only weak that time. And so eguipment also wasn`t that heavy before it, it was Romans hwo ruled the world befoure 1200, and if they would wanted they could defeat chinese, but not concuere it, they realised their empire is already large enough.
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler There were many Great Walls. The first Great Wall was built in the 3 centtury BC during Qin dynasty and the 2nd Great Wall was uilt in 2nd century BC during Han dynasty and many more Great Walls afterwards. Most of these Great Walls are gone now. The Great Wall you see now is the Ming Wall that was built in the 15th century. The ancient China was far more technologically advanced than the Roman Empire. The Qin or Han army could have made mincemeat out of Roman legions.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 About wall i agree, but disagree with equipment. Seriouselly, chinese were beaten HUNDREDS times, by huns (and others too, not only huns) and Romans defeated greatest hun warlord ever(attila the hun)... No need to tell hwo were better fighters, Romans or Chinese. Chinese also got bigger armies.
People should open their eyes for fact that Romans were greatest empire during for over 1 000 yers, even Alexander the Great accepted Romans are very good fighters.
TheRomanRuler 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler You are wrong, man. Yes ,the Huns were powerful at one time but Han dynasty beat them completely by about 150AD. The southern Huns became the vassals of Han dsynasty and trhe northtern Huns were forced to retreat westwards. Eventually the northern Huns showed up in Europe beating not only Germanic tribes but also the Roman Empire. In my opinion the Battle of Chalons was a draw, and after that He invaded Italy and devastated the northen Italy.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@TheRomanRuler I sent another comment but I forgot to address it to you. It's on the top of the same page, please read it before responding.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia (imo), plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
從秦皇陵出土的兵馬俑和武器裝備
可以知道秦國士兵身高約180~190cm比其他六國更高大
而秦國主力武器是弓箭和強弩，最大射程約500m以上
跟羅馬重裝步兵相比，秦國已經具有優秀的遠距離作戰能力
戰國時期中國的兵學很發達，像是著名的孫子兵法和衛繚子等....
比起羅馬很單調的方陣還有重裝步兵，秦國的戰法和兵種都更靈活
a71808732a 1 month ago
damn! i wana be part of that army!
rEsonansDx 1 month ago
He took an arrow to the... everything.
l337z0r 1 month ago
peoplesgeneral* and china will grow weak cause of the one child policy, and everyone only wants boys, so there will be no girls
Spartan0057 1 month ago
Why are people debating a imaginary war that never took place thousands of years ago? Even with all the historian research today, everybody is still guessing. It is like guessing whether batman or the spiderman is stronger. It is all fictions at this point and feel free use your own imagination and keep it to yourself... cause we all know it is not true.
delmarheight 1 month ago
@delmarheight why do people write books? Why do people sing songs? why do people make any movies. Come on.
TheCarydal 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
TheOneChriss 2 months ago
i believe both sides were well-trained, but even if the romans defeated qin, which is unlikely to happen, the romans would have to battle the other 6 states that were in china at the time
TheRice12345 2 months ago
@TheRice12345 Qin's army was a bunch of peasants that were conscripted. Their equipment and weapons were far from the "soldiers" that are describing in this clip. So Qin's peasants would never match with professional army that Roman had. The only thing that could beat Roman's legions were mobility and shock ie. Calvary and elephants which Qin did not have.
ngocquang19877 2 months ago
@ngocquang19877 qin were nomads.....
x1altair 1 month ago
@ngocquang19877 part of the reason (imo) why they beat the other 6 countries in ancient china. btw if you are an euro-centric/white-supremacist this might make you feel a bit better, i don't think ancient qin ppl resemble modern day orientals as ppl believe nowadays. i think they were sinocized euro-asians. qin ppl used to be on the western edge bordering nomads and breeding horses for zhou dynasty.
x1altair 1 month ago
@x1altair I think you are wrong . Most of Qin people were Han Chinese. However there was a normadic tribe called Rong who might have been related to Mongols or Huns. The Rong tribe was not related to any of the Europeans. This period is called the Warring States' Period in Chinese history. At this time China was far more advanced than the Greeks or Romans. Also Qin was a very militaristic state. The Qin army could have made mince meat out of the Alexander's army or Roman legions.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@x1altair Qin finally subdued the normadic Rong tribe in 314 BC. They became part of the Qin state whose rulers and people were Han Chinese.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 秦人是馬背上的部族 but they of course are chinese. 90%+ of chinese are han.. Just think about it with some logic, there's over a billionaire of " han" while the rest of the population in the world are made up by the other couple hundred of races. Wow hans must fuck like rabbits, why not the french with 1 billionaire ppl or the egyptians with a billion ppl? China aka the middle kingdom has always been the united nation of asia, it had great diversity among itself culturally and ethnically.
x1altair 1 month ago
@x1altair What the fuck are you talking about? Just because you may fuck and breed like a rabbit, it doesn' mean all Chinese do.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 u dun get sarcasm
x1altair 1 month ago
@x1altair Sarcasm ? There is no reason to be sarcastic about the size of China's population.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 the sarcasm was not about the population of china, it was about ppl's misconception of chinese as a single race. btw, i think if a person were to tell qin emperor or his soliders that they were "han", i think his tongue would have been cut off to say the least.
x1altair 1 month ago
@x1altair The concept of being "Han" came much later. Han dynasty did not even exist in 260bc. It seems to be even the people of Han dynasty didn't call themselves as Han. I think the concept of using the word Han came much much later.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@x1altair Of course I realize that in the process of making "Han" Chinese nation, many other Asian ethnic groups have been assimilated both genetically and culturally. I can see there are genetic differences even among Han Chinese( just look at the physical difference between the northen Chinese and the southern Chinese)., In my opinion the term Han Chinese makes more sense in the cultural terms rather than in terms of genetics.
DumbHonkie1 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
@x1altair There is no similarity in comparison.The Qin,Zhao,Qi etc are actually Dukedoms!At that time,the Chinese were already one Empire based on feudalism. There was a dynasty (Zhou),then degenerated into chaos as the Hegemon lost political control.Qin is considered the first true empire cuz it implemented central control n bureaucratic systems,unlike a hegemony.The Chinese are mostly one people.Han ppl go by that name cuz the Han Dyn. was the first golden age where China flourished.
kwehzh 1 month ago
@x1altair It was the Han Dynasty which introduced meritocracy and Imperial Exams to select bureaucrats,governors,when there was relative peace and cultural advancements.The improvement to the lives and welfare of the general populace was tremendous, thus creating a lasting impression. Although the dukes and feudalism were not entirely abolished, the power of the warlords diminished greatly, civil war was not to come until a few centuries later. (China is always its own enemy)
kwehzh 1 month ago
@x1altair All these dynastic successions are merely power struggles between internal factions, not assimilation of significantly different cultures. Granted, each locale of China has its minor differences, but the underlying culture is thousands of years old. (Han dynasty was huge already) The preceding Xia and Shang were sizable too. Do you think all the cities in your country have the exact same culture? America is a child by comparison, what 300 years old?
kwehzh 1 month ago
@x1altair And as for the part about Qin army vs others...Crossbows,ballistas,hard iron weapons made from blast furnaces,occasionally some steel(expensive),a million soldiers supported by 10million peasants with advanced agricultural techniques & fertile land(making 10x food Europeans do) and a central command more draconian than you can imagine,military treatises and tactics developed still in print and usage today (Art of War), all existing before caesar's time, what more can you say?
kwehzh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DumbHonkie1 being han is like being "american" in asia, plus chinese have the tendency to comform with the rest afraid of being judged. Eventually everyone just calls himself a han once they lose track. Im sure in a thounsand yrs, most americans wont be telling ppl oh im 2% brit 3% scottish 4% black 10% indian 5%chinese yadda yadda.. Im not arguing with u, because its typical for men to have biase pride and nationalism. but its all bs in the bigger picture of human History.
x1altair 1 month ago
@ngocquang19877 You dont know squad about Qin dynasty. Under the law, most of the men were trained in military with excellent combat skills and strategy. They had nothing to do but fight or plant since no entertainments allowed for them. to a warrior, how many people they killed directly related to their wealth and status, so they were always driven to kill. Go check out some actual fact about Qin before spreading your word as a euro-centric blabbing white or whatever.
IRockLikeISaid 1 month ago
Another thing, research the engineering accomplishments of ancient china builders..you might be surprise at what you will find. Ancient china's greatest enemy was' itself' for believing they could never be beaten. Read about the treasure ships. You might sh it yourself. suggestive read' 1421' I am not chinese, but i am a student of history. Persians were nothing. Roman was great. but it never face the Armies of Qin. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. We have an empire now, USA.
kisstherain73 2 months ago
reading your posts....you guys even research history and understand what weapons they used? Flame throwers,bombs,rockets, metal that roman didn't know how to make?..etc. seriously? guys? They had super bows that shot over a mile. China was a great empire that closed itself out to the world. The inventions that china took for granted went to Europe and it came back to enslave them. examples, horse stirup...seems harmless...but horse stirup made heavy cavarly possible, steel, gun powder..etc.
kisstherain73 2 months ago
中国古代能一直延续下来，武力在其次，最主要的还是文化吧
yijiez1115 2 months ago
forget the persian arrows i want there archers
MrCharcol13 2 months ago
The Roman Empire is gone... China is still here and growing stronger by the day. :P
PeoplesGeneral 2 months ago
LOLZ does it actually make sense to shoot all these arrows and bolts and whatever they shoot on a city, like a stone- walled- city?
PewPewPlasmagun 2 months ago
@PewPewPlasmagun the roof isnt made out of stone. just weak woods, hay, and maybe some tiles
jason200912 2 months ago
Holy crap I never expected that way that a crossbow is used
spacemarin37 2 months ago
Rome would be beated up !! by those chinese
TheSuperieur 2 months ago
there=these
x1altair 2 months ago
imagine rome were to last to this day, half of the white ppl would have roman on their passport just like over half of the asian ppl are chinese. its a cultrual unity, not a race. china was much more diverse in ancient times, but there days almost every chinese considers himself a han.
x1altair 2 months ago
@x1altair No, not really. China was in its own land. Never took over neighboring lands. If we did, we would control what is known today as Japan, Korean, and pretty much Southeast Asia.
icyrazor 2 months ago
Because you visioned China from modern time.
FlexibleFour 2 months ago
lmao i love how people are writing novels here
VanYYFan 2 months ago
They were picking rice and scratching their ass 260 bc they didn't even hit the bronze age yet. rofl this is laughable
8701803 2 months ago
@8701803 The fuck you talking about? This is Qin dynasty formed 221BC after Warring states period 500BC which came from Zhou Dynasty which came from Shang Dynasty 1900BC. Chinese were not just picking rice before 260BC. Bronze age came during Shang Dynasty dumbass. The Chinese have the largest bronze artifact in the world. Read up on world history before you make yourself look retarded. You probaly failed World history why bother stupid fuck.
DragonOfQin 2 months ago
@8701803 that clear shows ur poor educational level, ignorant and stupidity.
Sinderking 2 months ago
@8701803 are you serious? do you know one of three great war book also the oldest one was written in 500bc in China? Maybe you just keep picking your nose and scratching your ass.
FlexibleFour 2 months ago
@8701803 You better are a troll or an ignoramus.
CannibaLouiST 2 months ago
I don't know where you those numbers, but you should think through it: no one can maintain a 1.5 million professional army from 1.5% of the GDP, that is very ridicoulos, because it assumes almost infinite high GDP, or that professional means a peasant with stick.
tatararpad 2 months ago
the roman empire, during the pax romana was Giant,Rich and Powerfull i do not know where these guys, who says that the Roman Empire had few soldiers, and a weak economy,according to estimates, the GDP of the Roman Empire in middle 2nd century AD, was about about 75-80 billion of dollars [1990], this makes Roman empire of those days are richer than the Ottoman Empire or Portuguese one in their days of glory, by comparing the Roman Empire were almost rich as the Mughal Empire.
gueropalma1990 2 months ago
@tatararpad Well, China's GDP for most of its 5,000 years of history has always been between 30% to 50% (half) of the world's total GDP. A 1.5 million men army is hardly surprising, given its size and well-developed bureaucracy and manufacturing.
RonnieNolanRaharjo 2 months ago
Also, wtf is this? unrealistic piece of shit movie..
Cherdenkov 2 months ago
@lovehomelandchina Yeah, but if craftsman's weapon fail and failure leads to balls being shot with arrow...I would be pretty pissed at craftsman...and the Chinese would do some hardcore shit like kill his whole family...once again China, damn...you scary
johnnyMarkusBadovi 3 months ago
I know it would be impossible....but it would really suck if at 1:29 all the dudes with the feet cross bows accidentally back-fired
johnnyMarkusBadovi 3 months ago
@johnnyMarkusBadovi
In Qin's era, every weapon was scirbed with craftman's name, if failure, the craftman's whole family (his side, his wife's side, his mother's side) would be put into death. You got to respect the craftman's skills.
lovehomelandchina 3 months ago
DAMN CHINA YOU SCARY!!!
johnnyMarkusBadovi 3 months ago 2
Romans were epic!
sidonus 3 months ago
@sidonus only once!
FlexibleFour 2 months ago
@ComradeMing I never mentioned the Indians in my previous comment. Need a pair of glasses? Or maybe you are just continuing your childish remarks? Probably the second. Romans are gone. True. Them Chinese soldiers and that advanced race that lived in China at that time is also gone... btw.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
@ComradeMing proved right again. 12 yrs or less. stop playing with yourself. Take ur finger out of ur mama's ass and grow up. Vikings, Normans, Romans, Greeks, English, Slavs... Europeans... free people. No commies. thanks to our freedom of speech, u can even use the internet. oh, i see. u r protecting urself cos other commies can check what u do on the net? oh... how sad. 1 more thing - fuck off child and talk to me only when u grow hairs on your balls.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
I would like to apologise for some rough language i have to use here, but some people just do not have the brains to have a normal civilised conversation and still live in the dark ages - like ComradeMing. There are actually some normal people here who would be interesting to converse with, pity some people do not have the necessary amount of brain cells needed to amongst others of the human race.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
@ComradeMing Asshole - i am English not ukrainian. i'm temp living here only, working. AND i am half italian. Of course u will find smth to say about UK, Italy and so on. (i dont give a shit about commy assholes' opinions).. that's what commy assholes do - insult civilised ppl. Ukrainians r cool ppl asshole. U, asshole, r a commy piece of shit. By the way, grow up. What r u 12 yrs old? still mastubating using ur mama's panties? Commy... beware, judgement day is coming.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
@ComradeMing Piece of shit? So that's where you're going... Listen, u lifeless deflated prick, peewee cock sucking wanker! Listen, comrade... Commy days are over and countries thinking they can go on living in commy fantasy world will get a wake call soon enough. If u don't like my comments, u can come and blow me cos we live in an almost completely free world and i will post whatever the fuck i fucking well want to. By the way, tell your mama to stop begging me to do her.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
@ComradeMing different time periods? Caesar's legions plus Remi horse (Gaul) and German horsemen (which he personally bought Remi horses for)? What are you talking about? All the troops i mentioned were part of Caesar's army... Please inform yourself before making comments mate.
Grimrippa1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
chinese were the first to invent "total war". every person in a nation works for the military and the war, there is no difference between soldiers and citizens, all meshed into one
clipmaster30001 3 months ago
The Qin society was almost like the Spartan society of the east as compared to the rest of the kingdoms in China, highly militarised and very unforgiving.
lordangelic 3 months ago
@lordangelic
Worse than that. That looked down by other warring states, unable and dislike farmings, constantly interacting with Huns and very tough law made joining the army the only way for Qins to survive, the only way to have food was by killing at least one enemy soldier, by killing more could upgrade him to a low rank noble, aka family members could survive by his performance in the army.
lovehomelandchina 3 months ago
@ingDynasty700
you are funny , how can you use a army in past to compare with a army in modern ? I just know one thing , in Qin , a student in 8 years old learn how to kill a adult , compare in western in same period , they just learn how to make a fire .
crazzyzzy 3 months ago
btw whats the name of the movie? :)))
lumthegreat 3 months ago in playlist More videos from DeltaRomeoNiner
creative assembly should make a china total war or zhan guo series or something for the next total war :D
lumthegreat 3 months ago in playlist More videos from DeltaRomeoNiner