Most powerful empires of each century

Mar 2012
4,370
"In 660 the Tibetan Empire and their Turkic allies attacked Shule. The Tibetan Empire also attacked Wakhan to the protectorate's southwest. When the Tang general boasted of the size of his army, Gar Tongtsen Yulsungs son responded in the following manner:

There is no disputing the matter of numbers. But many small birds are the food of a single hawk, and many small fish are the food of a single otter. A pine tree has been growing for a hundred years, but a single axe is its enemy. Although a river runs ceaselessly, it can be crossed in a moment by a boat six feet long. Although barley and rice grow over a whole plain, it is all the grist of a single mill. Although the sky is filled with stars, in the light of a single sun they are nothing.
  • Bregel, Yuri (2003), An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Brill"
This is just few years before the battle of Dafeichuan. You can see the Tang general boasting of his great numerous army he fielded against a joint Tibetan-Turkish army. Only vast army is the Tang one which is so much bugger that the son of the Tibetan general says "There is no disputing the matter of numbers". If anything Tang fielded super large armies that dwarfed the Tibetan-turk army.
As I already told you in the other thread, this source is medieval, just like the Bka thang sde lnga, so if you believe in this, then why are you denouncing the later? Just because it suits your pre-determined conclusion?
 
Jul 2014
1,587
world
No, its 1954, not 1964, read the damn source.

The first and second census of PRC are considered unreliable. Even the third census have some problems .... any man with an iota of knowledge about China will know about it. Your number is from the second census and mine is from the third. Now read the damn thing before spouting bullshit again.


I understood you fine, you are the one who can't read and that's why you are still posting things that's irrelevant to my question. I ask again, where did Dotson say the Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000? Saying 360 stong sde seems too much does not mean Dotson said Tibetans can't mobilize 200,000. Dotson never said a stong sde has to be exactly 1,000 nor did he say Tibet can't mobilize 200,000.

Hey genius ... Read again. Dotson gives more weight to the 44 and 62 stangde part more than your fantastical 360 stang de.


No its not like believing in 2 million men persian army, because we actually have
1) Tibetan sources recording numbers over 200,000
2) Chinese sources with an independently operating (from military) court historian recording head counts.
3) Nomadic states in history with even smaller population capable of mobilizing such forces.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit again. We have more reliable and more frequent report of Tibetan strength being 42 and 62 stang de. Dotson and schwartz laughs at your 36 stangde theory.
 
Jul 2014
1,587
world
As I already told you in the other thread, this source is medieval, just like the Bka thang sde lnga, so if you believe in this, then why are you denouncing the later? Just because it suits your pre-determined conclusion?
Sure I believe it if you will also believe that Tang emperors and Persian emperors were the vassals of the TIbetans.
 
Jul 2014
1,587
world
The first map is the agricultural map of China and the second/ third is the grassland/pasture land map of China. This is the extent of the agricultural and pastureland development in the 21st century. Now you know why scholars consider the 360 stangde a joke and a Tibetan army of 200000 a gross exaggeration.
 

Similar History Discussions