~Corsair#01~
Deity
It wasn't "early atomic bombs" that MAD was based on.Xen said:
The case for China as the most powerful empire of all times
- Thread starter Khaghan
- Start date
~Corsair#01~ said:
dosent matter- the precedent is still the same; for all intents and purposes, despite the actual yeilds, and even the physics required for the differnt types 9Hydrogen bombs, or standard atomics based either on uranium or Plutonium) they are all base doff the same line fo reserch and technological devleopment, and are essentially the same weapon, improved over time.
if the nuclear world had stayed at th eprigional low yeild bombs, the cold war woudl have been no different, only the actual number fo bombs woudl be even larger then it was historically, to make up for the lack of power in each individual bomb
"nto ture- late republic era sheild (aka, the "Caesarian era") were of a different type, of a more oval design, often lacked the outer edge metal re-inforcement (make no doubt though, thsi is when it first appered in any siginicant amounts) and did not have at allt eh same metal umbo structure of later sheilds, even so soon as to after the agustian reforms of the military."
"A)the roman formations wer ebogged down by arrow fire, but the arrows themselves are not all recorded as winnige the battle indeed, the actual killing bow for the legions at carhae is described at beign the parthian speaermen, and thier heavy shock cavalry- not the archers"
The arrow was what kept the Romans at bay and wore them down, this isn't anything unclear, the very fact that Crassus found it neccessary to lead a cavalry to attack the Parthian from constant arrow assault shows that the arrows were already taking a toll, even if its not enough to wipe out the legions at the moment.
"of course its desicsive- that fact is testiment in the fact thatthier was never a war between the soviet Union and the united states, for mutual fear of being ahnilated by such weapons"
You are talking about the later developed Hydrogen bomb in the 50s as well as the invention of the ICBM's, the atomic bomb of the 40s were nothing decicive and could not destroy a country as a whole.
__________________
"A)the roman formations wer ebogged down by arrow fire, but the arrows themselves are not all recorded as winnige the battle indeed, the actual killing bow for the legions at carhae is described at beign the parthian speaermen, and thier heavy shock cavalry- not the archers"
The arrow was what kept the Romans at bay and wore them down, this isn't anything unclear, the very fact that Crassus found it neccessary to lead a cavalry to attack the Parthian from constant arrow assault shows that the arrows were already taking a toll, even if its not enough to wipe out the legions at the moment.
"of course its desicsive- that fact is testiment in the fact thatthier was never a war between the soviet Union and the united states, for mutual fear of being ahnilated by such weapons"
You are talking about the later developed Hydrogen bomb in the 50s as well as the invention of the ICBM's, the atomic bomb of the 40s were nothing decicive and could not destroy a country as a whole.
__________________
Khaghan said:
you miss th epoint- you claimed that the arrow was decisive in causing the casulties that led to the roman defeat due to the fact that the romans hands and feat were uncovered; this is liitdlly supstantiated, while it is claimed that the roman suffered from injuries to thier hands and feat, thie ris no indication that the parthians won the battle over it; but rathe rit prevented the Roman from dealign with the actual threat the Parthians had to go agiasnt he Roman army, thie rspear-men levieas, and more infamouslly, thier heavy cavalry
a single hydrogen bomb cannt not destroy a country as a whoel either- but in enough numbers, any bomnb can destroy every single inch of land in an entire nation-
the thign is, it takes fa rless nuculer bombs to do this, and oce they have exploded, they leave radiation, which asures the death fo every oen in the fall out zone, whch not at all limited to the blast zone fo the weapon, and the effects of radition, be they disease, or genetic mutation or debilitation in an even LARGER area then the immediate killing effects of radiaton, or the intial blast zone.
thats the exact reason that nucler wapons, as of the yeild of the intial bombs developed, and ay weapon larger cannot even be conceives as mere 'tactical advatages"- these weapons are meant to be a descive blwo tot he enym by killing absolutelly everythign in their zone of effectivness, period.
"you miss th epoint- you claimed that the arrow was decisive in causing the casulties that led to the roman defeat due to the fact that the romans hands and feat were uncovered; this is liitdlly supstantiated, while it is claimed that the roman suffered from injuries to thier hands and feat, thie ris no indication that the parthians won the battle over it; but rathe rit prevented the Roman from dealign with the actual threat the Parthians had to go agiasnt he Roman army, thie rspear-men levieas, and more infamouslly, thier heavy cavalry"
No, you missed my point, I never claimed it was decisive, reread my post, the point was that it injured the Roman legions, while stronger crossbow would bestronger.
No, you missed my point, I never claimed it was decisive, reread my post, the point was that it injured the Roman legions, while stronger crossbow would bestronger.
"
a single hydrogen bomb cannt not destroy a country as a whoel either- but in enough numbers, any bomnb can destroy every single inch of land in an entire nation-
the thign is, it takes fa rless nuculer bombs to do this, and oce they have exploded, they leave radiation, which asures the death fo every oen in the fall out zone, whch not at all limited to the blast zone fo the weapon, and the effects of radition, be they disease, or genetic mutation or debilitation in an even LARGER area then the immediate killing effects of radiaton, or the intial blast zone."
Enough large conventional bombing could also destructroy the world, but thats not the point it is? the atom bomb simply does not cover enough radius of destruction to create total destruction nor did the United State have enough of it to do so.(to have enough would cause bankrupcy considering the small area covered by the A-Bomb, bombing raids with large conventional missiles are in fact more destructive in this case),
I'll repost
# of Nukes- USA
# of Nukes- USSR
1945
6
0
1946
11
0
1947
32
0
1948
110
0
1949
235
1
1950
369
5
1951
640
25
Together the thirteen atomic blasts could have destroyed a total area of 35.49 square miles and created a prompt radiation zone of instant lethality covering 3.25 square miles. The area of the built-up expanse of 28 boroughs now known as Greater London is 616 square miles. So in 1946 a nuclear bombardment inflicted by Americas only atomic bombing force, the 509th Composite Group of B-29s (assuming that all nine or thirteen planes survived to reach the target area and that each bomb was detonated at a burst height of 1,800 feet), had the potential to directly blast away perhaps 4 percent of the metropolis and contaminate 0.4 percent with instantly lethal bursts of neutrons and gamma rays. By 1947 this destructive potential would have increased to blasting perhaps 6 percent of the conurbation and lethally contaminating 0.5 percent with prompt radiation. Lighter structural damage and multiple human deaths and injuries would of course have extended in a wide circle further out. 30,000 Londoners had died in the Luftwaffes Blitz. A massed American atomic raid would have killed hundreds of thousands more. (The 1951 London census recorded a total population of 8,346,137.)"
"thats the exact reason that nucler wapons, as of the yeild of the intial bombs developed, and ay weapon larger cannot even be conceives as mere 'tactical advatages"- these weapons are meant to be a descive blwo tot he enym by killing absolutelly everythign in their zone of effectivness, "period.Year "
No,
I repeat, the power of the atom bomb is nothing more destructive than a strategic bombing raid, in term of area, the atomic bomb only cover so much. At the same time, without the invention of the ICBM, the United States require total air supremacy for such strike to be effective, this they had over Japan, but not the Soviets, the Mig 15 is more than any fighters that the U.S. could put up, and the only plane capable of carrying the A bomb is the B-29 which would have been highly vulnerable. None of the strategic Russian cities are within the reach of the U.S. bombing raids. No decisive gap in applied technology opened up within the United states and Soviet Union until the collapse of the later
a single hydrogen bomb cannt not destroy a country as a whoel either- but in enough numbers, any bomnb can destroy every single inch of land in an entire nation-
the thign is, it takes fa rless nuculer bombs to do this, and oce they have exploded, they leave radiation, which asures the death fo every oen in the fall out zone, whch not at all limited to the blast zone fo the weapon, and the effects of radition, be they disease, or genetic mutation or debilitation in an even LARGER area then the immediate killing effects of radiaton, or the intial blast zone."
Enough large conventional bombing could also destructroy the world, but thats not the point it is? the atom bomb simply does not cover enough radius of destruction to create total destruction nor did the United State have enough of it to do so.(to have enough would cause bankrupcy considering the small area covered by the A-Bomb, bombing raids with large conventional missiles are in fact more destructive in this case),
I'll repost
# of Nukes- USA
# of Nukes- USSR
1945
6
0
1946
11
0
1947
32
0
1948
110
0
1949
235
1
1950
369
5
1951
640
25
Together the thirteen atomic blasts could have destroyed a total area of 35.49 square miles and created a prompt radiation zone of instant lethality covering 3.25 square miles. The area of the built-up expanse of 28 boroughs now known as Greater London is 616 square miles. So in 1946 a nuclear bombardment inflicted by Americas only atomic bombing force, the 509th Composite Group of B-29s (assuming that all nine or thirteen planes survived to reach the target area and that each bomb was detonated at a burst height of 1,800 feet), had the potential to directly blast away perhaps 4 percent of the metropolis and contaminate 0.4 percent with instantly lethal bursts of neutrons and gamma rays. By 1947 this destructive potential would have increased to blasting perhaps 6 percent of the conurbation and lethally contaminating 0.5 percent with prompt radiation. Lighter structural damage and multiple human deaths and injuries would of course have extended in a wide circle further out. 30,000 Londoners had died in the Luftwaffes Blitz. A massed American atomic raid would have killed hundreds of thousands more. (The 1951 London census recorded a total population of 8,346,137.)"
"thats the exact reason that nucler wapons, as of the yeild of the intial bombs developed, and ay weapon larger cannot even be conceives as mere 'tactical advatages"- these weapons are meant to be a descive blwo tot he enym by killing absolutelly everythign in their zone of effectivness, "period.Year "
No,
I repeat, the power of the atom bomb is nothing more destructive than a strategic bombing raid, in term of area, the atomic bomb only cover so much. At the same time, without the invention of the ICBM, the United States require total air supremacy for such strike to be effective, this they had over Japan, but not the Soviets, the Mig 15 is more than any fighters that the U.S. could put up, and the only plane capable of carrying the A bomb is the B-29 which would have been highly vulnerable. None of the strategic Russian cities are within the reach of the U.S. bombing raids. No decisive gap in applied technology opened up within the United states and Soviet Union until the collapse of the later
"nto ture- late republic era sheild (aka, the "Caesarian era") were of a different type, of a more oval design, often lacked the outer edge metal re-inforcement (make no doubt though, thsi is when it first appered in any siginicant amounts) and did not have at allt eh same metal umbo structure of later sheilds, even so soon as to after the agustian reforms of the military."
The change of the shield is gradual and not sudden, by the time of Marius, rectangular shields are already in use in mix with the oval type. Here is an exerpt from
Polybius' description of the shield in mid-2nd century BC: Curved, layered wood, covered with leather and linen. Top and bottom rimmed with metal, iron boss. Four feet tall, 2-1/2' wide (in the early oval shape).
Fayum scutum, 1st cent. BC: Curved oval, 52"x25". Three layers of birch strips, totalling c. 1/2" thick at the middle, c. 3/8" at the edges. Wooden "spine" boss, horizontal handgrip. Front and back covered with felt which is folded over the edges and stitched through the wood. Weight, 22 pounds.
The change of the shield is gradual and not sudden, by the time of Marius, rectangular shields are already in use in mix with the oval type. Here is an exerpt from
Polybius' description of the shield in mid-2nd century BC: Curved, layered wood, covered with leather and linen. Top and bottom rimmed with metal, iron boss. Four feet tall, 2-1/2' wide (in the early oval shape).
Fayum scutum, 1st cent. BC: Curved oval, 52"x25". Three layers of birch strips, totalling c. 1/2" thick at the middle, c. 3/8" at the edges. Wooden "spine" boss, horizontal handgrip. Front and back covered with felt which is folded over the edges and stitched through the wood. Weight, 22 pounds.
You are missing the point of my Atomic post; i fully regonize that with e intial blast, and the immediate lethal leval radioton effect, atomic weapons are not a huge leap over conventianl bombs- however- I make the repetive poitn that it is the side effects of non lethal nuculer fall out/ radiation that is just as, if not even more worrysome then the atomic blast, and the lethal leval of fall out. needless to say, this amount of radion spreads far wider, and has fa rlarge reffects then the intial area of any tyype of blast, from any other form of weapon, save bio-chemical weapons, which, obviouslly had not reached nearlyl a sophisticated enough leval to be any considerable threat, due both to negligenc eint he feil of study of air dispersal, and perhaps lack of technological sophistication to make it viable in that era in the first place.
to emphisize the point, not only dose fall out have a far wider effect, hat it effects an immediate area far larger then the intial blast zone,a nd xzone of lethal radition, but a godo deal of fallotu can be toted, via wind, to other area, inflicitng even more problem upon the target, and in soem cases, areas that have nothign to do with the target nation at all.
combien this with eh fact that after over half a century, people in the areas of hiroshima, and nagasaki are still beign effected by the radiotn levals in those areas, and you dont have a tactical weapon- its insanity to even argue it.
Nuculer weapons, from the very offset, were desgigned to "war winners", because they went for the long term effects of not only packing a huge force in a single package, creating a fa rmor eintimidateing single weapon, but a weapon that coudl be used to wage total war on a leval unprecidendented in all human history, allowing for the total, long-term devistation of an areas biologial life- your coference of a tactical anything is not only wrong, but damned wrong- your alliteration to it beign no more then somthign along the lines of an AK-47 is laughbale- nuculer weapons of anytype kill utterlyl indiscrimtantley, and are ment to make an impact- not just in the force of thier explosion, but in the aftermath of that explosion, and that is what you seem to be failign to take intoaccount.
thier is more to the history of war, and to victory then the mere force of an explosion, or how able a crossbow bolt is able tyo penetrate armor, or how many tactics a certian nation knew compare dto another nation, a whoel leval you dotn take into account the personal leval- people get intimidated, people get feelings, people have complex empotions that if played properlly can be the most effective weapon an eneym can yeild agiasnt an opponent, and in the end is the truest path to victory over any other. And it is for that reason that nuculer weapons are so devistateing- they play on the mind just as much as they play around with the physical world, and embodyment of so much power, and so much devistation is just so much for a person to handle, and that is yet another so potent an effec tof the weapons, and one fo the biggest argument agiasnt nuculer weapons being "tactical"
to emphisize the point, not only dose fall out have a far wider effect, hat it effects an immediate area far larger then the intial blast zone,a nd xzone of lethal radition, but a godo deal of fallotu can be toted, via wind, to other area, inflicitng even more problem upon the target, and in soem cases, areas that have nothign to do with the target nation at all.
combien this with eh fact that after over half a century, people in the areas of hiroshima, and nagasaki are still beign effected by the radiotn levals in those areas, and you dont have a tactical weapon- its insanity to even argue it.
Nuculer weapons, from the very offset, were desgigned to "war winners", because they went for the long term effects of not only packing a huge force in a single package, creating a fa rmor eintimidateing single weapon, but a weapon that coudl be used to wage total war on a leval unprecidendented in all human history, allowing for the total, long-term devistation of an areas biologial life- your coference of a tactical anything is not only wrong, but damned wrong- your alliteration to it beign no more then somthign along the lines of an AK-47 is laughbale- nuculer weapons of anytype kill utterlyl indiscrimtantley, and are ment to make an impact- not just in the force of thier explosion, but in the aftermath of that explosion, and that is what you seem to be failign to take intoaccount.
thier is more to the history of war, and to victory then the mere force of an explosion, or how able a crossbow bolt is able tyo penetrate armor, or how many tactics a certian nation knew compare dto another nation, a whoel leval you dotn take into account the personal leval- people get intimidated, people get feelings, people have complex empotions that if played properlly can be the most effective weapon an eneym can yeild agiasnt an opponent, and in the end is the truest path to victory over any other. And it is for that reason that nuculer weapons are so devistateing- they play on the mind just as much as they play around with the physical world, and embodyment of so much power, and so much devistation is just so much for a person to handle, and that is yet another so potent an effec tof the weapons, and one fo the biggest argument agiasnt nuculer weapons being "tactical"
I know nothing about Chinese military, but I do have two questions:
1. If the Chinese was so superior, why didn't they conquer more? As far as I know, the pretty much stayed in the area that is China today, and thus didn't conquer many other nations like the Romans did. Why didn't China conquer central Asia?
2. In the movie "Hero", the Qin army has some extreme firepower. How much does this resemble reality?
1. If the Chinese was so superior, why didn't they conquer more? As far as I know, the pretty much stayed in the area that is China today, and thus didn't conquer many other nations like the Romans did. Why didn't China conquer central Asia?
2. In the movie "Hero", the Qin army has some extreme firepower. How much does this resemble reality?
Dann
Green bug
@storealex
I'm not as well-versed as Khaghan, but I think I can answer your questions.
Re 1):
The current territory of China IS conquered territory. The original China consists only of the Yellow River valley. Then it slowly expanded in all directions absorbing the neighboring tribes. And assimilating them so thoroughly no vestiges remain of these cultures. Later on, it's southward expansion encompassed the Yangtze River too. And still later even further south. Beijing was merely a minor town along the periphery during the Warring States period. That's already after at least 1500+ years already of Chinese history, a couple hundred years more if you include the Xia.
As for the place I'm currently in, it's actually considered southern barbarian territory as late as the 3 Kingdoms period. 
And at one time or another, China also held northern Vietnam, northern Korea and yes, parts of central Asia. In fact, linguistically and culturally Xinjiang IS Central Asian.
A few notable large kingdoms (with a distinct culture) that no longer exist:
1) Ba and Shu in today's Szechuan and Yunnan - eliminated by Qin during the Warring States.
2) Yueh in today's Fujian - eliminated during the Han.
3) Numerous southern Man kingdoms - eliminated during the 3 Kingdoms period.
4) 16 (!) nomad kingdoms in northern China during the North-South dynasty era. (Well, technically they sort of destroyed each other by themselves, but the final winner there, Bei Wei, was urbanized and Sinicized already, and no longer a nomad kingdom by the time of it's victory.)
5) Liao in Manchuria - eliminated during the Song. (in collaboration with the Jin, who then turned on the Song and took northern China.)
6) The Jin and Xi Xia in northern China, Bohai in Manchuria and Dali in today's Yunnan plus northern Laos and Burma - eliminated by the Mongols.
The current Manchuria, Mongolia (partly), Xinjiang and Tibet all were incorporated into China under the Qing. Prior to that there were other independent kingdoms in all these territories.
And of course, there existed also all sorts of minor tribes, kingdoms and clans which were slowly absorbed all these millenia. Records are sadly incomplete, and sometimes even conflicting. Thankfully, modern archaeology is slowly shedding light on these.
I'm not as well-versed as Khaghan, but I think I can answer your questions.
Re 1):
The current territory of China IS conquered territory. The original China consists only of the Yellow River valley. Then it slowly expanded in all directions absorbing the neighboring tribes. And assimilating them so thoroughly no vestiges remain of these cultures. Later on, it's southward expansion encompassed the Yangtze River too. And still later even further south. Beijing was merely a minor town along the periphery during the Warring States period. That's already after at least 1500+ years already of Chinese history, a couple hundred years more if you include the Xia.
As for the place I'm currently in, it's actually considered southern barbarian territory as late as the 3 Kingdoms period. And at one time or another, China also held northern Vietnam, northern Korea and yes, parts of central Asia. In fact, linguistically and culturally Xinjiang IS Central Asian. A few notable large kingdoms (with a distinct culture) that no longer exist:
1) Ba and Shu in today's Szechuan and Yunnan - eliminated by Qin during the Warring States.
2) Yueh in today's Fujian - eliminated during the Han.
3) Numerous southern Man kingdoms - eliminated during the 3 Kingdoms period.
4) 16 (!) nomad kingdoms in northern China during the North-South dynasty era. (Well, technically they sort of destroyed each other by themselves, but the final winner there, Bei Wei, was urbanized and Sinicized already, and no longer a nomad kingdom by the time of it's victory.)
5) Liao in Manchuria - eliminated during the Song. (in collaboration with the Jin, who then turned on the Song and took northern China.)
6) The Jin and Xi Xia in northern China, Bohai in Manchuria and Dali in today's Yunnan plus northern Laos and Burma - eliminated by the Mongols.
The current Manchuria, Mongolia (partly), Xinjiang and Tibet all were incorporated into China under the Qing. Prior to that there were other independent kingdoms in all these territories.
And of course, there existed also all sorts of minor tribes, kingdoms and clans which were slowly absorbed all these millenia. Records are sadly incomplete, and sometimes even conflicting. Thankfully, modern archaeology is slowly shedding light on these.
Dann
Green bug
Re 2):
Let Khaghan answer this. It's his field of expertise after all.
Let Khaghan answer this. It's his field of expertise after all.
People don't realize but countries like China or India could be almost considered a continent (if their physical landmass wasn't so connected). I can't speak too much for China, but the Indian subcontinent can be compared to Europe. Each region (now mainly provinces) had their own language. Only a few actually spoke what is now the national language (Hindi in India, Urdu in Pakistan).storealex said:
Jeff Yu
Prince
blindside said:
Actually, some 70-75% of the population of China speaks Mandarin Chinese natively. Another 20-25% speak Chinese languages like Cantonese or Shanghainese. These vary from Mandarin the way romance languages like French, Spanish, and Italian vary from each other, but they share the same Chinese writing system as Mandarin. Roughly 6% of the population of China speaks ethnic languages like Zhuang (~15 million), Tibetan (~6 million), Mongolian (~6 million), etc.
"1. If the Chinese was so superior, why didn't they conquer more? As far as I know, the pretty much stayed in the area that is China today, and thus didn't conquer many other nations like the Romans did. Why didn't China conquer central Asia?"
The Han did expand outwards, and the number of kingdom that Han conquered is in no way less than Rome's. Han did conquer central asia. They controlled 60 kingdoms in the Tarim Basin. While what is present day south China was under the kingdom of Nan Yue which was occupied by Wudi in 112 b.c. while Choson in North Korea is also occupied in 108 b.c.
"2. In the movie "Hero", the Qin army has some extreme firepower. How much does this resemble reality?"
No much, the armour and helmet look more Roman in design than Qin especially the feathers. The foot drawn crossbow are used for sieges, while on the battle field the hand is used more. In all Hero really haven't depicted much battle tactic at all, it was mainly for the looks and they didn't do a good job of it.
The Han did expand outwards, and the number of kingdom that Han conquered is in no way less than Rome's. Han did conquer central asia. They controlled 60 kingdoms in the Tarim Basin. While what is present day south China was under the kingdom of Nan Yue which was occupied by Wudi in 112 b.c. while Choson in North Korea is also occupied in 108 b.c.
"2. In the movie "Hero", the Qin army has some extreme firepower. How much does this resemble reality?"
No much, the armour and helmet look more Roman in design than Qin especially the feathers. The foot drawn crossbow are used for sieges, while on the battle field the hand is used more. In all Hero really haven't depicted much battle tactic at all, it was mainly for the looks and they didn't do a good job of it.
Similar threads
