Is Chinese history overrated?

Chinese history overrated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 19.8%
  • No

    Votes: 77 80.2%

  • Total voters
    96
Jul 2018
427
Hong Kong
And the Ming army also scored a total victory over the famous Toyotomi Hideyoshi's grand expeditive army in AD 1592-98 (actually the long peaceful and negotiating period was at the interval ; it comprised two unconsecutive wars of AD 1592-93 and AD 1597-98 rather than single one lasting the entire seven years). The Japanese might had a great number of Portuguese-style snap matchlocks, but the Chinese had numerous large-calibre guns to bombard any fortified cities or castles ! Though the Ming army's performance was not particularly impressive in comparison with the Japanese, his superiority in number, resource and firearms ensued the strategic domination over his enemy.

So many Sengoku famous generals joined this expedition, Konishi Yukinaga, Shimazu Yoshihiro, Tachibana Muneshige, Kobayakawa Takakage, Ishida Mitsunari, with all those warlike samurais and bulky of navy composed of large number of supply ships thunderously descended....

Nevertheless, the Chinese beat them on land theatre finally ! (while the Korean pwned them on sea with some naval support from Ming). Toyotomi Hideyoshi's mighty ambition of conquering China (he merely viewed Joseon as a "springboard" for the conquest of China) was thus utterly shattered. This was no small deed in the military history of China, and also of East Asia !

Oh right, who just said that the Chinese military was rubbish in the recent 500 years ? That thread host, of course. Bigotry or extremity came from ignorance, this is always right.
 
May 2018
493
Michigan
The problem, I think, is that Chinese history is often not rated at all in the first place. I couldn't tell you much about the Three Kingdoms Period, but I could tell you all about Roman history in the 3rd century.
 
Apr 2018
26
Los Angeles
I'm guessing the original poster's question is based on China's historical achievements? From that perspective, it depends on who you're talking to. Are China's historical achievements overrated? When talking to an extreme Han nationalist that boasts China's achievements over all other civilizations? Then the answer is yes. When talking to a Eurocentrist that downplays or derides all non-western achievements? Then the answer is no, in fact it would be underrated. When talking to an unbiased scholar/historian that objectively gives credit where it is due? Then the answer to that one is no as well.
 
Aug 2018
368
london
And don't forget to hand back Canada and the US to the native population.
Canada and the US are countries created by white settlers. They didn’t exist before them. There’s a vast difference between settlers who created countries from scratch and immigrants who move into ready-made countries.
 
Apr 2018
26
Los Angeles
Canada and the US are countries created by white settlers. They didn’t exist before them. There’s a vast difference between settlers who created countries from scratch and immigrants who move into ready-made countries.
It's funny how history's winners can write their own rules. Rather than labeling themselves as "invaders" that conquered natives; they simply identify themselves as "settlers" that created "nations" that previously didn't existed. By that logic, one can argue that the descendants of those victors are now on the losing side. Most nations created out of Western colonialism are becoming less "White European" demographically. "Immigrants" particularly non-European ones, like the "White Settlers" before them, are now re-writing their own rules as they are on the winning side in today's age.
 
Aug 2018
368
london
It's funny how history's winners can write their own rules. Rather than labeling themselves as "invaders" that conquered natives; they simply identify themselves as "settlers" that created "nations" that previously didn't existed. By that logic, one can argue that the descendants of those victors are now on the losing side. Most nations created out of Western colonialism are becoming less "White European" demographically. "Immigrants" particularly non-European ones, like the "White Settlers" before them, are now re-writing their own rules as they are on the winning side in today's age.
Well they were settlers and they did create their nations and civilizations where there was nothing. You can call them invaders too if you want, because they took over land with nothing on it that Indians had previously fought each other over.

Land isn't a society, it isn't a country, it isn't a civilization. Those things are created and built by people.

White settlers created successful countries/civilizations that now other people want to immigrate into to benefit from. They have plenty of land in their own countries but their countries aren't as attractive, so they want to come to the white people's country. But in the process they have a habit of turning it into the country they are trying to get away from.
 

Similar History Discussions