Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:24 PM   #831
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

After more than eight hundred posts, guess everyone here is well aware that the poster who opened this thread could not have had an any more evident aggressive chauvinistic agenda, and that such poster has been banned from Historum since already some months ago, right?

Guess that the subjective largely nationalistic opinions of every side are already evident.

IMHO there is no need to play the game of the opener of this thread and to let the emotions clash againt each other.

IMHO too it would be exponentially more useful just to analyze the relevant deeds achieved by the preferred civilization of any Historumite contributing here, without any potentially derisive comparison.

Just IMHO
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 25th, 2012, 06:08 PM   #832
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
I don't remember ever saying that china had an advanced economy or technology in the 19th century. China used matchlocks but it had up to date artillery since it adopted artillery from jesuits in the 17th century to defeat the russians at albazin.

In the ming dynasty, after the portuguese were defeated twice at tamao in 1621 and 1622 (by chinese junks with inferior cannon), the chinese copied and reproduced portuguese cannon they captured since they were superior.

Chinese junks armed with inferior chinese designed cannon also forced the dutch who had superior cannon out of the pescadores in the 1620s into taiwan, and then defeated the dutch at the battle of fort zeelandia in 1662.

China had inferior military technology but that was not why china lost. The vastly inferior, underdeveloped afghans managed to rip the british army to shreds using matchlocks and swords against more advances british technology. Afghanistan and china had the same military technology. China lost because its military training and discipline decline sharply after decades of no war.

China's military was made out of manchu bannermen whose position was hereditary and a poorly trained green standard army. The bannermen received a stipend for doing nothing at all, and often gambled and engaged in other activities.

The qianlong emperor noted that a hundred years before chinese bannermen were only slightly inferior to manchu bannermen, and in his time, the quality had declined drastically. The same thing happaned to the manchu bannermen. They didn't bother training at all after the initial manchu conquest of china. The green standard army were given inferior weapons and military training in china was very lax.

The white lotus rebellion erupted in 1794 and took ten years for the rebels to be put down. The eight trigram rebels themselves broke into the forbidden city and nearly killed the emperor since the military discipline broke down severely.

China's Last Empire: The Great Qing - William T. Rowe - Google Books

Since training was bad, in the first opium war, sometimes chinese soldiers inside forts and junks did not bother firing their artillery at all at the british.

In the second opium war in 1859, when the gunners at taku forts actually fired back at the british they managed to sink and destroy the enemy gunboats.

Britain won because it went up against a poorly trained and lax enemy.

Chinese pirates hired as mercenaries by the chinese government (they spent their entire lives fighting unlike bannermen in the chinese army) managed to wipe out portuguese pirates off the chinese coast in the 1850s.
And to add to this, many of the soldiers britain sent to fight china in the opium wars were indian sepoys. You claim that britain's colonies were a burden, yet massive amounts of their miltary came from those colonies, and they were used both in other colonial wars and against other european powers, and britain also drained massive amounts of wealth from those colonies.
deke is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 06:19 PM   #833

mansamusa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,568

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
And to add to this, many of the soldiers britain sent to fight china in the opium wars were indian sepoys. You claim that britain's colonies were a burden, yet massive amounts of their miltary came from those colonies, and they were used both in other colonial wars and against other european powers, and britain also drained massive amounts of wealth from those colonies.

Sylla and Guaporense and others, as far as I am concerned, need to properly explain this idea that the colonialism was a drain on the Colonialists. The Colonialists were a a tiny elite of Westerners, exploitiing their colonies. How much money did Leopold lose running the Congo.

Would Britain have ever been a world power without its colonies?
mansamusa is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 09:03 AM   #834
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pusyamitra View Post
Tell me if we had firepower than why were we lacking when fighting the Muslims. A few scattered literary references is no proof that something existed as the ancients of those days believed in lots of fantastical ideas.

As I said it is fact that for over 90% of history China has exceeded India in every way possible.
not in every way possible but well yes in most of the things that matters.

despite being an indian nationalist by core, I have no shame in accepting that china was better technologically, militarily, economically etc. for most of the time.

infact I believe that among the four regions which had great civilizations till 1300 ad, like india, china , middle east ( i mean from egypt to uzbek borders ) and europe, it was India that was least developed in technology.

my own scheme of things is that india really outclassed only persian and north african region in terms of originality of technologies but since they had great interaction with both china and europe, they also outsmarted indians.


to elaborate, let us take a look at 700 ad world.

I really think that in maths( nearly all branches of it ), medicine, logic, arts and architecture and metallurgy, India was better than Persia and north africa and much of today's arab world.


but we do know that Tang china was better than India in technology and so what happened was that arabs got paper, compass and printing from chinese and maths from indians and greeks.

the region from morocco to uzbekistan left back india by 900 ad in technology

and this was solely due to their interaction with greek, indian and chinese world a thing we lacked pretty much so when an turk uzbek invader babur invaded us, it was not that uzbek areas were better for most of history than any indian small province ( take kashmir for instance ) , but that he had adopted cannon technology from Ottomans and so he was successful in genociding us.

had our short sighted rulers acquired technology by importing it from china, i assure you that we would have been much better as we had a very good institutionalized system of education but without printing and paper, you can not become a great power.



finally i present my own views on this advancement ( economically and technologically ) aspect of india



1. from 600 bc till 200 bc the areas which were more advanced than india were perhaps iraq, iranian areas, syria, egypt, and a small part of south europe and asia minor.

frankly, I do not think that china was more advanced than india in this period no matter how much list of inventions i am supplied with.


2. from 200 bc to 400 ad - in this period, I think the only area that india was more advanced was the areas ruled by sassanian and parthian empires.

i maintain that both han and roman areas were more advanced than india in this age.

3. from 400 ad to 700 ad - this is the time when India made great contributions to world civilization like maths, algebra and steel as well as great works in medicine which were translated in chinese, arabic and even uighur languages.

but we certainly were not more advanced than china in this age.

4. from 700 ad till 1200 ad- it was china and islamic world that were leading and the only thing i know is that Indians were better than europeans in this period.

from 1200 ad till today - india least advanced region out of these civilized areas of middle east, china, europe and India.



it is bitter to say this but even if you are born to poor mother and fathers, they are the only ones who would care you and so I will remain a patriotic indian without being ashamed of being an indian with full knowledge that india in last 2500 years was a notch behind than other three great regions.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 09:09 AM   #835
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
And to add to this, many of the soldiers britain sent to fight china in the opium wars were indian sepoys. You claim that britain's colonies were a burden, yet massive amounts of their miltary came from those colonies, and they were used both in other colonial wars and against other european powers, and britain also drained massive amounts of wealth from those colonies.
90,000 Indian soldiers were killed in first world war fighting for british army and not a drop of tear travelled down the rose cheeks of highly cultured british gentle ladies .

it is a fact that you will have no sympathy for men whom your PM ( churchill ) calls beastly.

the gentlemen and ladies are not expected to weep for beasts and you are not expected to recognise the services of beasts.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 09:18 AM   #836

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,514
Blog Entries: 6

Keeping aside the claims made by Guoporense about the superiority of the western civilization , the posts that were composed by him pointing towards the miseries of the colonialists in maintaining their colonies , is , in itself , inherently an absurd remark and a paradox .
If the colonies were such a burden on the pacifistic colonial masters , why not leave them and let them rot ?
Is it that the concepts of universal fraternity and the recognition of human rights , [which were exclusively ingenious to West and none else ] , made them revisit their decision so that they could work day and night , put all their blood and sweat to develop their colonies !?
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013, 01:42 PM   #837
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 16

The Chinese weren't even interested in progress, because of their deep-rooted belief in legalism and Confucianism. jump to 14:01

Last edited by Ricey; January 13th, 2013 at 01:55 PM.
Ricey is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
advanced, antiquity, civilization


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
coming from civilization or the fall of civilization? athena General History 2 June 18th, 2010 08:53 AM
The most advanced mind of it's time Kronos General History 54 July 31st, 2009 10:29 PM
US advanced all the way into Baghdad kevinthecool Speculative History 18 August 11th, 2008 07:17 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.