Ancient china's military

[ray243]

I thought it will be nice to start a thread focusing about warfare in ancient china, from the spring and autum period to the Qing Dynasty.


A lot of people is used to seeing china's army as a undisciplined horde of peasents...so perhaps some forum members well versed in the wars and armies in ancient china can enlighten us?

[Erwin Rommel]

finally.





intriguing isnt it

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Those ships were freaking awesome.
That big square fortress however looked stupid tho and can't imagine it being effective.
Especially not if they had mines.

[Exarch]

I thought it will be nice to start a thread focusing about warfare in ancient china, from the spring and autum period to the Qing Dynasty.


A lot of people is used to seeing china's army as a undisciplined horde of peasents...so perhaps some forum members well versed in the wars and armies in ancient china can enlighten us?

only an ignoramus would dismiss imperial china's armies as a 'undisciplined horde of peasants'.
just a q. to those more versed in chinese warfare; which dynasties used a mainly militia based military and which used professional soldiers?

[ray243]

only an ignoramus would dismiss imperial china's armies as a 'undisciplined horde of peasants'.
just a q. to those more versed in chinese warfare; which dynasties used a mainly militia based military and which used professional soldiers?

Given that LOTS of history text book says that the UN forces lost to china because of the chinese human wave tactics...it's not suprising really.

Hell, during the korea war, the chinese is OUTNUMBERED and outgun by the UN forces...

[AqD]

There is no clear boundry between professional and militia. But basically those who defend the north border (against nomads) and capital guards are considered much better than armies in other places.

In ancient china "professional" army doesn't imply better training or discipline. In Song and Qin dynasties, for instance, their professionals (whose sole job is to fight) are in fact inferior to locally-trained militia. And in Ming dynasty the mercenary Mongolians are ironically regarded as the best units, and their semi-professionals were degraded so much in later periods that they had to hire militia to protect them.
________
Lesbian live

[gaius valerius]

IA lot of people is used to seeing china's army as a undisciplined horde of peasents...so perhaps some forum members well versed in the wars and armies in ancient china can enlighten us?

Undisciplined horde of peasants? Who are those ignorant ppl?

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

Really, who cares about the ancient Chinese military?

[Exarch]

Really, who cares about the ancient Chinese military?

who gives a rat's arse about imperial roman legions?
who gives a rat's arse about mayan/aztec warriors?
who gives a rat's arse about napoleonic armies?

if you havent got anything to contribute but ethnocentric crap/trolling, then perhaps you might care to piss off from this thread

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

who gives a rat's arse about imperial roman legions?
who gives a rat's arse about mayan/aztec warriors?
who gives a rat's arse about napoleonic armies?

if you havent got anything to contribute but ethnocentric crap/trolling, then perhaps you might care to piss off from this thread

Probably our modern society.

Ancient China impacted very little on our present (westernised) society. The military even less. That's why a thread glorifying the ancient Chinese military is pointless.

[Sh3rpa]

yeah, cause what's paper and gunpowder got to do with us.

[celtic warrior]

yeah, cause what's paper and gunpowder got to do with us.

Because we used paper today e.g. During the Chinese Song Dynasty (AD 960-1279) not only did the government produce the world's first known paper-printed money, or banknote, and particularly toilet paper believe me its better than a communal sponge

[ray243]

Probably our modern society.

Ancient China impacted very little on our present (westernised) society. The military even less. That's why a thread glorifying the ancient Chinese military is pointless.

Military even less? A world without east asia will be a very different place.

Let's say the Han dynasty fails to destroy the Xiong Nu, their Descendants, the Huns may never travel to europe at all, and start the great migration throughout the roman empire.

Or the invention of stirrups, which is invented in china as well.

Or the invention of the compass that aid the european navies to build their great naval empire.

Of no importance my friend? As long as europe and asia is connected to each other, what goes on in one part of the world will affect the other part of the world.

[hellheaven1987]

Mmm... Interesting. I do have some understanding of Chinese Military, and I can say that depends on dynasty and situation, the organization was quite different too.

I would go deeper tommorrow, but now I have some business needed to finish.

[AqD]

Or the invention of stirrups, which is invented in china as well.

The oldest stirrup was found in Korea. There are several very old ones found in china as well. But since chinese recorded history never wrote stirrup as an "innvention" (like papers or firearms), it's really debated. What's certain is that it first appeared in North-eastern China / Korea regions.
________
Wandelax live

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

yeah, cause what's paper and gunpowder got to do with us.

It's also got nothing to do with the ancient Chinese military.

Military even less? A world without east asia will be a very different place.

Let's say the Han dynasty fails to destroy the Xiong Nu, their Descendants, the Huns may never travel to europe at all, and start the great migration throughout the roman empire.

Or the invention of stirrups, which is invented in china as well.

Or the invention of the compass that aid the european navies to build their great naval empire.

Of no importance my friend? As long as europe and asia is connected to each other, what goes on in one part of the world will affect the other part of the world.

First of all, there's no direct evidence that the Xiong Nu were the ancestors of the Huns. There's indirect evidence, such as genetic research, that conflicts with Chinese records.

Secondly, the stirrup is not a solely Chinese invention. The earlies mention of a stirrup comes from the Sarmatians - who used a single stirrup to mount their horses. Plus, the invention of the stirrup is kind of later in chinese history.

Thirdly, the compass that aided the rise of the exploration age was the dry mariner's compass, and was invented in Europe in the 14th century.

The connection between Europe and East Asia in the ancient period (the Qin dynasty in China) of history is hardly evident - probable non-existant.

[Niles Crane]

I thought it will be nice to start a thread focusing about warfare in ancient china, from the spring and autum period to the Qing Dynasty.


A lot of people is used to seeing china's army as a undisciplined horde of peasents...so perhaps some forum members well versed in the wars and armies in ancient china can enlighten us?

Apparently they had a terrible army in the 19th century. But I suppose that can mostly be attributed to the Europeans having superior firearms and tactics.

[AqD]

Apparently they had a terrible army in the 19th century. But I suppose that can mostly be attributed to the Europeans having superior firearms and tactics.

No. What it showed is the army of many chinese dynasties after they degraded due to many decades of peace. And it's worse in Qing because they had no enemy at all (mongols was under control).

Their primary force - the eight banners, could no longer fight and the government had to rely on local militia. The militia was undisciplined, badly-equipped and under-paid, and many of the generals cannot read. After the Self-Strengthening Movement, some of the troops did acquire advanced weapons, which cannot save them anyway due to serious lack of training.

At that time the Japanese army was also very old fasioned - but I don't think anyone would regard the army of Samurai as a bunch of "undisciplined horde of peasants" (and they were just like china - had peace for hundreds of years)
________
RacingGirl

[ray243]

Apparently they had a terrible army in the 19th century. But I suppose that can mostly be attributed to the Europeans having superior firearms and tactics.

Agreed....it is really until the Qing dynasty did china starts to fall way behind the europeans. Most of the time..the military is still comparable.


And I want to ask, what is so bad about using a militia? Just because a country make use of a militia army...does not mean that it will lose a war.

After all, the US army during the second world war can be called a milita army as well.


If the Milita is well trained enough...they can easily overwhelmed a well trained professional army using tactics and numbers as well.

[AqD]

Agreed....it is really until the Qing dynasty did china starts to fall way behind the europeans. Most of the time..the military is still comparable.

Wrong. Superior technique doesn't always mean better military power as a whole. Please, read some real history about Qing army.
________
AVANDIA SETTLEMENTS