Yes I agree lets get back to the matter at hand. I just don't have much time, my woman is keeping me so busy. I am going nuts right now. I will try to get on when I can do so. Where are we in the scenario?
Alexander the Great vs. China
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
Yes I agree lets get back to the matter at hand. I just don't have much time, my woman is keeping me so busy. I am going nuts right now. I will try to get on when I can do so. Where are we in the scenario?
well that could be a good thing, gotta get your priorities straight/ I was just thinking of agreeing what the next step mights be, but I think there some unresolved issues.
aelf
Ashen One
Obviously, you failed to read anything.
And the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. That's absurd, but that's the idea behind what you're saying. Besides, there's not one iota of justification coming from you despite your blind assertion that your opinion on the matter is valid.
Anyway, I wasn't even the one who first went on about movies in the first place. I merely commented that Red Cliff is not a good movie and certainly not an authority on anything. The movie discussion was peripheral until some of you insisted on imposing your (bad) tastes on someone else and talking about being overly-critical, missing out and all that jazz.
I'm sorry if some people have standards and those are not merely derived from whatever the media happens to bombard us with. I'm sure you don't like having this revealed to you, just as much as no one likes to be failed for a bad essay
vogtmurr said:
After repeated displays of ignorance in various forms in this thread, I think I shall be content to leave your project be. Well, some others have warned of this, so I'm not entirely surprised.
You must really be high on drugs because I've no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe it's attempt at humour. Well, keep working on it.
I do like LotR. But I shall not get into that because it's pointless. It's not likely that you know more about it than I do anyway, so it would be funny for you to talk about deep appreciation or whatever.
nokmirt said:
Saying the latest Beowulf is awesome is sig-worthy. After that, most people who know something would just cease talking to you about movies.nokmirt said:
No, it's an Anglo-Saxon epic. Anyway I need to laugh some more.
And I have more reason to laugh because of the pure silliness of what you wrote. Yeah, go on and take Red Cliff as your source on Chinese history of warfare. The only thing I will do from now on is...
Obviously, you failed to read anything.
And the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. That's absurd, but that's the idea behind what you're saying. Besides, there's not one iota of justification coming from you despite your blind assertion that your opinion on the matter is valid.
Anyway, I wasn't even the one who first went on about movies in the first place. I merely commented that Red Cliff is not a good movie and certainly not an authority on anything. The movie discussion was peripheral until some of you insisted on imposing your (bad) tastes on someone else and talking about being overly-critical, missing out and all that jazz.
I'm sorry if some people have standards and those are not merely derived from whatever the media happens to bombard us with. I'm sure you don't like having this revealed to you, just as much as no one likes to be failed for a bad essay
After repeated displays of ignorance in various forms in this thread, I think I shall be content to leave your project be. Well, some others have warned of this, so I'm not entirely surprised.
You must really be high on drugs because I've no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe it's attempt at humour. Well, keep working on it.
I do like LotR. But I shall not get into that because it's pointless. It's not likely that you know more about it than I do anyway, so it would be funny for you to talk about deep appreciation or whatever.
No, it's an Anglo-Saxon epic. Anyway I need to laugh some more.
And I have more reason to laugh because of the pure silliness of what you wrote. Yeah, go on and take Red Cliff as your source on Chinese history of warfare. The only thing I will do from now on is...
ok now your just being absurd, and Beowulf is based on a poem written by Monks its common knowledge so come back to planet Earth.
Hey aelf, I have studied History since I graduated high school, I have been all over the world. What your saying just does not make sense. I have done several essay's on Beowulf and it is written by monks in Scandinavia, and variations of the story also were founded in England, which is not far fetched because of the many viking excursions there. It is based on a poem and the original form was changed.
Think about it this way: The monks were the scribes...the printing press of the time period. Since they were religious, they would change anything they considered not worthy of attention by readers--current or future. This means all dirty jokes, anything vulgar or obscene, and anything they considered too common. So, since they were the recorders of the oral literature of the time (since so many were unable to read and write for themselves, the songs, poems, stories, riddles, jokes, etc. were recorded by the monks), they chose what to write down and keep for posterity and what they would ignore. Much was lost because of this, and it stands to reason that of the written literature we do have, much was changed. This is why it was boring. So aelf, listen, are you listening? Good, this is why whoever retells this story should have license to make it better, because the story was never written down in the original form it was supposed to be set down in. All the guts of the story were removed. If you have no ability to find truth in this then, you are too impaired to see reason. Read a bit before you judge, your judgement is faulty.
I am surprised your brain could handle a good trilogy like LOTR, it must have been smoking and straining so hard for a reason not to like it. LOL! You probably had the migraine of your life. OH MY GOD I CANNOT HATE THOSE DAMN HOBBITS! BYE THEN MR. AELF!
help me god were do these guys come from.Obviously, you failed to read anything.
And the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. That's absurd, but that's the idea behind what you're saying. Besides, there's not one iota of justification coming from you despite your blind assertion that your opinion on the matter is valid.
Anyway, I wasn't even the one who first went on about movies in the first place. I merely commented that Red Cliff is not a good movie and certainly not an authority on anything. The movie discussion was peripheral until some of you insisted on imposing your (bad) tastes on someone else and talking about being overly-critical, missing out and all that jazz.
I'm sorry if some people have standards and those are not merely derived from whatever the media happens to bombard us with. I'm sure you don't like having this revealed to you, just as much as no one likes to be failed for a bad essay
After repeated displays of ignorance in various forms in this thread, I think I shall be content to leave your project be. Well, some others have warned of this, so I'm not entirely surprised.
You must really be high on drugs because I've no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe it's attempt at humour. Well, keep working on it.
I do like LotR. But I shall not get into that because it's pointless. It's not likely that you know more about it than I do anyway, so it would be funny for you to talk about deep appreciation or whatever.
No, it's an Anglo-Saxon epic. Anyway I need to laugh some more.
And I have more reason to laugh because of the pure silliness of what you wrote. Yeah, go on and take Red Cliff as your source on Chinese history of warfare. The only thing I will do from now on is...
Oh bye the way I watched Red Cliff because I never saw it, not because I thought I would learn History from it. What I did learn was that it is very hard to find Red Cliff 2. Oh, and that you don't give very good critiques, for somebody who is trained in theater and production.
Now enough of your half hearted opinionated arguing and lets get back to Alexander vs. China.
I was just thinking of agreeing what the next step mights be, but I think there some unresolved issues.
Yes well I have wasted too much time arguing with a colleague on here. But I did it I found one movie the gentleman actually likes.
Anyway what are the issues, let me guess the Chinese crosbow, and the size of Alexander's cavalry for starters.
I wasn't trying to justify my opinion about the movies. I'm trying to end this disagreement. These attacks are getting personal, and I think we're both smarter and bigger than this.
If "too bad you missed it" causes you such grief, then forgive me for pointing out that shooting down a couple of movies I happened to enjoy, one of which you didn't see, doesn't prove I have no taste or intelligence. To be fair, someone was excited about Red Cliff, and you brought up House, and it degenerated from there. It was OK to discuss for awhile - I'm not holding you responsible - but it is becoming an issue of pride and consuming our energy. I suggested maybe the movie forum is a good place to continue it. However, I'm beginning to get the picture that your primary issue is that these movies are too jingoistic at an obviously politically charged time; it isn't about artistic integrity and accomplishment; when you critique the adaptation of a popular graphic novel.
I'm sorry if some people have standards and those are not merely derived from whatever the media happens to bombard us with. I'm sure you don't like having this revealed to you, just as much as no one likes to be failed for a bad essay
After repeated displays of ignorance in various forms in this thread, I think I shall be content to leave your project be. Well, some others have warned of this, so I'm not entirely surprised.
...:
What I said in the first part. I would welcome the chance to correct wherever understanding departed from reality, in whatever appropriate thread or PM format. Instead I get cryptic remarks and behaviour I have no opportunity to address. If everyone's behaviour is above reproach, I guess it must be my fault. I'll put it down to inexperience.
aelf
Ashen One
We've got a bad case of either insanity or drug abuse here. But at least the humour's getting better 
Pity there's still not an ounce of straight reasoning, though. And merely a convoluted mass of half-knowledge (monks changed stories? No shite, but who's talking about changing stories anyway?) and yet baseless opinions (you suck, etc). And funny that there's a critique of criticism that does not even try to aspire to half the level of intelligence or content of what it's criticising. All the symptoms of terrible misuse of the human brain, probably induced by drugs if we want to give the benefit of the doubt to all humanity and not just jump into the black hole out of sheer absurd amusement
Look, if you want I can talk about this at length, if I have the time. Whether it's about the failure of 300 as an adaptation of the graphic novel or about why there should be objective standards for art. I've dealt with theatre, film and philosophy of art - those were the subject matter of my studies at some point. And I read the graphic novel years before there was any hint that a movie was going to be made out of it, and I liked it (though now I know some things better).
But I doubt you're very interested in those at the moment, and that's very well. I certainly wasn't intending to launch into a discussion about film. I did bring up House of Flying Daggers merely as a casual comment and a tangential comparison to highlight how much I trust Red Cliff and its director as authorities on anything, so it was indeed peripheral.
Anyway, I don't care if I'm wrong. I used to have very different opinions when I first posted here, and I've since realised that they are wrong. However, I have low tolerance for hard-nosed ignorance. And I'm quite blunt. If there are good reasons, I'm all ears. If it's just going to be baseless assertions then I would describe them as such.
vogtmurr said:What I said in the first part. I would welcome the chance to correct wherever understanding departed from reality, in whatever appropriate thread or PM format. Instead I get cryptic remarks and behaviour I have no opportunity to address. If everyone's behaviour is above reproach, I guess it must be my fault. I'll put it down to inexperience.
As I mentioned, some things just don't mix well with me. And it's best, therefore, that I don't participate any longer. I apologise for thwarting your project. Please go on.
Pity there's still not an ounce of straight reasoning, though. And merely a convoluted mass of half-knowledge (monks changed stories? No shite, but who's talking about changing stories anyway?) and yet baseless opinions (you suck, etc). And funny that there's a critique of criticism that does not even try to aspire to half the level of intelligence or content of what it's criticising. All the symptoms of terrible misuse of the human brain, probably induced by drugs if we want to give the benefit of the doubt to all humanity and not just jump into the black hole out of sheer absurd amusement
Look, if you want I can talk about this at length, if I have the time. Whether it's about the failure of 300 as an adaptation of the graphic novel or about why there should be objective standards for art. I've dealt with theatre, film and philosophy of art - those were the subject matter of my studies at some point. And I read the graphic novel years before there was any hint that a movie was going to be made out of it, and I liked it (though now I know some things better).
But I doubt you're very interested in those at the moment, and that's very well. I certainly wasn't intending to launch into a discussion about film. I did bring up House of Flying Daggers merely as a casual comment and a tangential comparison to highlight how much I trust Red Cliff and its director as authorities on anything, so it was indeed peripheral.
Anyway, I don't care if I'm wrong. I used to have very different opinions when I first posted here, and I've since realised that they are wrong. However, I have low tolerance for hard-nosed ignorance. And I'm quite blunt. If there are good reasons, I'm all ears. If it's just going to be baseless assertions then I would describe them as such.
As I mentioned, some things just don't mix well with me. And it's best, therefore, that I don't participate any longer. I apologise for thwarting your project. Please go on.
(monks changed stories? No shite, but who's talking about changing stories anyway?)
The latest Beowulf is horrible by all accounts of the people I know who have actually studied Beowulf. When one takes a text on screen and mutilates it, it generally turns out bad.
I think this talks about changing stories. I may be wrong.
Now enough of this, I am sorry about being immature, and I do not care if we do not like the same movies. Please do not leave this discussion aelf. I do value your opinion, and you always give insightful answers to difficult questions. But one thing is that I do not, or will I ever do drugs, don't say that again. The other thing is that during our heated exchange, neither one of us gave valuable evidence to back up our arguements. It really was my opinion vs. yours, and I will leave it at that, if it is ok with you.
As far as the arguement went I have learned from it and I have learned from you, that the politics behind filmmaking differ from what is displayed openly to the public. Also, that film should be kept in the best interest of the original source material from where it derived. However, I still believe in imagination and that is where the film industry today is lagging in many ways. Too many reality shows and re-makes, not enough imagination to tell new and exciting stories. In any case aelf, let's continue on with Alexander and China
Angelina Jolie playing a demon of sorts that has high heels as part of her body...I just about walked out of the theater (but it was Thanksgiving and my Dad paid for it)
Alexhalanx,Cavalry and Alexander
China:Crossbows,Advanced Ironworking,A ton of people and Sun Tzu.
This games winner is:China
The Chinese OC probably wuldn't have been anything like Sun Tzu. I wouldn't even say that he would have known his theories in depth - Sun Tzu came from Qi, which is on the eastern coast of China.
Also he lived about two hundred years before this would have happened.
Any Chinese army would probably be second-rate, since there was a civil war on and so they would have had most soldiers over there, fighting the rest of them. Rmember, the Persian Empire when he started ruled land from India to the Med., had tonnes of gold and could summon up a million men - and he won.
It was one of quite a few, though.
Yes I would agree, but I remember the first time I read about this battle. It said Darius III had 250,000. Lately I have been hearing even fewer numbers. Here is some insight
Size of Persian army
[edit] Modern estimates
Units Numbers Numbers
Peltasts 10,000[3] 30,000[6]
Cavalry 12,000[3] 40,000[4]
Persian Immortals 10,000[7] 10,000
Greek hoplites 8,000[3] 10,000[5]
Bactrian Cavalry 1,000[5] 2,000
Archers 1,500 1,500
Scythed chariots 200 200
War elephants 15 15
Total 52,930[3] 93,930[2]
Some modern scholars[who?]suggest that Darius III's army was no larger than 50,000 due to the logistics of fielding more than 50,000 soldiers in battle being extremely difficult at the time. However, it is possible that the Persian army could have numbered over 100,000 men.[2] One estimate is that there were 25,000 peltasts,[2] 10,000 Immortals,[7] 2,000 Greek hoplites,[5] 1,000 Bactrians,[5] and 40,000 cavalry,[4] 200 scythed chariots,[8] and 15 war elephants.[9] Hans Delbruck however estimates the number of Persian Cavalry at 12,000 due to management issues and Persian infantry (peltast) less than that of the Macedonian heavy infantry and the Greek Mercenary at 8,000. [3]
Warry estimates a total size of 91,000. Welman estimates a total size of 90,000. Delbrück (1978) estimates a total size of 52,000. Engels (1920) and Green (1990) also estimate the total size of Darius' army to be no larger than 100,000 at Gaugamela.
[edit] Ancient sources
Alexander commanded a force from his kingdom of Macedon, Thracian allies and the Corinthian League that, according to Arrian, the most reliable historian of Alexander (who is believed to be relying on the work of the eye-witness Ptolemy), numbered 7,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry. According to Arrian, Darius's force numbered 40,000 cavalry and 1,000,000 infantry,[9]; Diodorus Siculus put it at 200,000 cavalry and 800,000 infantry,[10]; Plutarch put it at 1,000,000 troops[11] (without a breakdown in composition), while according to Curtius Rufus it consisted of 45,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry.[12] Furthermore according to Arrian,[8] Diodorus, and Curtius, Darius had 200 chariots while Arrian mentions 15 war elephants.[9] Included in Darius's infantry were about 2,000 Greek mercenary hoplites.[5]
While Darius had a significant advantage in numbers, most of his troops were of a lower quality than Alexander's. Alexander's pezhetairoi were armed with a six-meter spear, the sarissa. The main Persian infantry was poorly trained and equipped in comparison to Alexander's pezhetairoi and hoplites. The only respectable infantry Darius had were his 10,000 Greek hoplites[5] and his personal bodyguard, the 10,000 Persian Immortals.[7] The Greek mercenaries fought as an Argos phalanx, armed with a heavier shield but with spears no longer than three meters, while the spears of the Immortals were 2 meters long. Among his other troops the most heavily armed were the Armenians who were armed the Greek way, probably as an Argos phalanx. The rest of his contingents were much more lightly armed; the main weapon of the Achaemenid army historically was the bow and arrow.
[edit] Size of Macedonian army
[edit] Modern estimates
Units Numbers
Phalangists 31,000[1]
Peltasts 9,000[1]
Cavalry 7,000
Total 47,000[1]
Most historians agree that the Macedonian army consisted of 31,000 heavy infantry including the Greek hoplites in reserve, with an additional 9,000 light infantry consisting mainly of Peltasts with some Archers. The size of the Macedonian mounted units was about 7,000.
Here are my references
1.)^ a b c d Moerbeek (1997) estimates 31,000 phalangites and 9,000 light infantry.
2.)^ a b c d e Warry (1998) estimates a total size of 91,000. Welman estimates a total size of 90,000. Delbrück (1978) estimates a total size of 52,000. Thomas Harbottle estimates 120,000.[1] Engels (1920) and Green (1990) estimate the total size of Darius' army to be no larger than 100,000 at Gaugamela.
So based on this I would have to believe that the Qin Army of say 310 BCE in your scenario, would be able to compare to Alexander's force.
Now later when Qin was in the process of unifying China, especially during its invasion of Chu, the size of armies, were upwards of one million men for each side. Now at the battle of Changping, 35 years earlier, in 260 BCE, the army of Qin numbered some 650,000, while Zhao had 500,000. Really amazing figures, that come from the records of the Grand Historian, Shiji, the Chinese comparison of Herodotus. My guess is and will probably agree that these figures might be quite exaggerated. The logistics would be impossible. I probably would say at least one hundred thousand for each side during these great invasions, however I along with everybody else have no proof. This is what I base my guess on, due to the problems of logistics of the time, and the limitations of technology of ancient times.
Dachs how about a rating system for different aspects of the scenario. For instance we could rate Alexander's command ability against the Qin General leading the Chinese army. Let's say the rating system is 1 through 5, with 5 being excellent.
I would start by saying Alexander had the complete advantage in generalship, and his rating is 5. I will give the Qin Chinese comander a 3, because I do not believe they have come into their own just yet. It will be several years later, before they become top notch commanders.
Now if you rate every aspect of the battle in this way, maybe we can formulate a picture of what would happen if there was a war, between Alexander and Qin.
Now everybody can vote on ratings, and it of course is speculation.
Another example would be bow against crossbow. I would give the Chinese a rating of 4 for their crossbow, against a 3 for Alexanders archers.
This is just an idea, and we can use this system from everything from metallurgy of weaponry to which side had better horses. Let me know what you think.
Cipher_101
Chieftain
Please, if it is not your age seniority(although I thought you are very very much younger by looking at your posts and your language), I would call on your name a thousand times(omitting the first word).
I hope I make myself clear, Mongolian at the time just before being united by Genghis Khan was also a bunch of staggered tribes warring with each other, but in the end they end up to be a greatest empire in the earth. Survival for the fittest, wars actually wipe out the weaks and strengthened the strongest, and the harsh competitions within tribes would only prepare them to face the outer enemies in the future.
Warring state ,in fact, was the greatest military period in China whereby advanced iron casting technologies were implemented, sophisticated military tactics were proposed( Sun Tzu's Arts of War actually is just one of many other chinese great tactics book), and the emergence of schools of philosophers and generals, although it was the period where the breakout of war is the most frequent in Chinese history. So a warring nation wouldn't be any inferior to a peace and unified nation in term of military strength. One should study more in depth about the history of a civilization lest he would make any insolent and illogical conclusion.
And sorry to interrupt your fantasy( and perhaps others), but I must be honest that in a broadest sense Alexander wouldn't stand any chance even against any one of the 7 states of China at that time(although they were actually more than 7 including the declined imperial court of Zhou). But Mr Alexander might have his Malaria healed with Chinese acupuncture and herbal medicine, and then back to his homeland with some Chinese souvenirs which were presented by the Chinese as a gift to Mr. Alexander unconditional surrender after a horrible fight.
I try. It comes with working with kids.
They had Genghis Khan, though, and if attacked would hardly have beaten an enemy of any size on their own. While it makes them more warlike, it also chews up resources, and see the paragraph below.
Except that if the nation has 100000 fighting men and is divided into two warring factions, then an invader will only ever have to fight 50000 soldiers, and it's a lot easier to beat 50000 twice than it is to beat 100000 once. Alse, maybe half of the army of each state will be keeping themselves safe from the other, which makes the united invader's jobb a lot easier.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement; I think you need to justify it.
- Status
Similar threads
