Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Mr. Tree]

id just like to also add that Han although had superior steel, were also able to create high qua;ity bronze swords which were known to be able to hold sharper edges then steel ones could during the first half of the Han dynasty; this means Chinese bronze swords alone can cleave through Roman armour let alone steel ones.

also evils argument that arrows are crap and can be overwhelmed by numbers; your an idiot. you try running me over with a truck while i just pick you off with my sniper rifle. you sure have a strong argument there (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

man more than half your aguments can be counted by common sense, its pathetic. idd hate to find out that your a history teacher or anything near it...

man at least have some basic high school knowledge of world history.....

crossbows have existed since the time of Alexander the great, cant quite recall when exactly but it was known to exist since then.

lol evil, now your claiming roman swords can cleave up the han.... dude, han has stronger, sharper, lighter, more available steel swords that were constructed of inserted steel (qiang gang all these techniques mentioned were later used in tradional japanese nihonto aswell as korean/vietnamese/thai/burmese swords smiths) with a harder edge wit ha softer core allowing a strong, lighter, slightly flexible (resistance not wushu swords). the best the romans could claim was a twist-pattern core design which was simply two different iron alloys mixed together (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

u dont know jack about swords, rome, or han.... this argument is over.

u got owned

[Type98G]

lol you can only select one choice for this poll

[Col]

I think this thread scared everyone aay lol. Even Evil's not b!tching anymore XD

[EvilAsianDude]

My god you people are ridiculous. You Chinese nationalists are so plenty, unfortunatly the quality of your arguments is poor just like the quality of Chinese armies.- Plenty but low in quality.


[quote]Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
[/quote]

No Duh? I think im well aware of that, unfortunatly you couldnt understand the main point of my post. QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND GET TO THE POINT. I state how the romans will win, you b!tch like a dog at my statement with a bunch of bloated garbage and waste my time. In fact your doing the same thing right now. Lets look at your entire post so far-

[quote]Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

[quote]And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:[/quote]

Please, if they were long and low on quality im pretty sure youll have no trouble crushing my points. Please do so rather than your constant low class trash talking.

[quote]It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."[/quote]

Then I guess this means you need to learn to read.

[quote]They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.[/quote]

No they havent, all theyve stated was a bunch of crap like
Han can farm more
Han can make more iron weapons
A different type of huns beat a divided roman empire full of barbarian mercinaries therefore the han should win

blah blah blah.
[quote]The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.[/quote]

Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality.

[quote]Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations.[/quote]

Yes im aware of the conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes. Besides that China for most of history had the largest population in the world. Of course a lot of land is necessary.

[quote]It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.[/quote]

Conquest of other chinese or much smaller tribes. Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese). And you tell me that the Chinese were expert tacticians. Much like how 60-80k mongols conquered all of China or how 303,000 chinese were killed in a single battle while the other side didnt even lost 3000 troops.

[quote]Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.[/quote]

I cant crush your arguments mainly because you dont have any. Your entire post so far doesnt even mention why the han will win. What is there for me to crush? Nothing, what a waste of my time.

[quote]Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself. [/quote]

You cant call me a troll when I happen to be arguing and part of the debate. Point troll posts with nothing but name calling = trolling. You and mr. tree both fit the term "trolling" nicely.

[EvilAsianDude]

[quote]Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.[/quote]

Right, whatever and time and time again youve show how pathetic you are. So sad. You threaten to beat me up in real life lol. You claim that your not going to waste any more time with me yet you just replied to me lol.

[quiote]rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....[/quote]

if you had so much as common sense I used the example of that battle of salsu to show how insecure and how you view the Chinese. When that guy posted the battle of salsu you instantly insulted him, I dont remeber what you posted but I do remember you posting how its fake, lies and resorted to trash talking him despite it being recorded in history. Yes we all know how insecure and immature you are. After all you call anyone who concludes that romans will win as "anti-chinese" and you also seem to threaten people online just because they believe that the han will lose to the romans. Lol so funny, id like to put you into a circus.

[quote]hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking[/quote]

Another reason why I dont take you seriously. Threatning someone online and now this. Freakin hilarious (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2


[quote]To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P [/quote]

Sorry but to be honest your the one whos selectivly reading. You first stated that Shaolin monks will own everyone, then I was able to prove that shaolin monks will lose to cavalry and archer warriors(which took like 5 danm posts just for it to get into your thick skull). Then you claim that Shaolin monks own everyone who doesnt use archery and bows which I later proved that other warriors train just as hard and that they have the advantge of the shield. Later I proved once again that other weapon using classess can defeat shaolin monks with no effort thanks to weapons, shield armor they used. Finally you stated that shaolin monks will own everyone in a fist fight, which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Then you finally conclude after all that senseless bull$hit of some kind of hippie statement "different environments different winners blah blah". Which I NEVER EVER AGREED TO. A stone floor wont make any difference between a spartan and a shaolin monk to a wooden floor.

You conclude using poor logic like "they can do back flips and punch really really fast(which is hard (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 god I love saying that if gives me a chuckle).

Do you still think that shaolin monks will own everyone?

If you say yes: your arrogance shows and you even admitted that they wont
If you say no: then I guess your poor logical skills and lack of common sense shows.

[juwanFromTaiwan]

A Samurai would win in all cases.. Samurais arent just blade wielding morons.. They are swift quick.. have so many weapons.. Alot of Ninjas are really Samurais. So you can imagine how much more a Samurai had to offer on the battlefield than just mere standardized Western stances (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 . That whole Samurai/Ninja seperation was a commercial showcase for modern days.. In reality Samurais and Ninjas never stuck by any honor code to a specific allegiance based on type. They honored their clan and that was about it... Why do you think Euros were unable to conquer Japan like they did other nations and establish colonies during the Age of Discovery? Ive seen Spartans fight in the movies and it's still way too slow and their weaponry might be heavier but it's not as strong or deadly as a Kitana. If let a couple thousand Samurai do their work against the Roman Army and the rest of Europe back in the day, I guarantee you there would be No Europe today. It would not exist.

This post has been edited by juwanFromTaiwan: Sep 24 2005, 01:27 PM

[kaizen]

A Samurai would win in all cases..  Samurais arent just blade wielding morons.. They are swift quick.. have so many weapons..  Alot of Ninjas are really Samurais.  So you can imagine how much more a Samurai had to offer on the battlefield than just mere standardized Western stances (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 . That whole Samurai/Ninja seperation was a commercial showcase for modern days..  In reality Samurais and Ninjas never stuck by any honor code to a specific allegiance based on type.  They honored their clan and that was about it...  Why do you think Euros were unable to conquer Japan like they did other nations and establish colonies during the Age of Discovery?  Ive seen Spartans fight in the movies and it's still way too slow and their weaponry might be heavier but it's not as strong or deadly as a Kitana.  If let a couple thousand Samurai do their work against the Roman Army and the rest of Europe back in the day, I guarantee you there would be No Europe today.  It would not exist.

You've been watching too many animes. Eh?

[Col]

Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.

Right, whatever and time and time again youve show how pathetic you are. So sad. You threaten to beat me up in real life lol. You claim that your not going to waste any more time with me yet you just replied to me lol.

[quiote]rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....

if you had so much as common sense I used the example of that battle of salsu to show how insecure and how you view the Chinese. When that guy posted the battle of salsu you instantly insulted him, I dont remeber what you posted but I do remember you posting how its fake, lies and resorted to trash talking him despite it being recorded in history. Yes we all know how insecure and immature you are. After all you call anyone who concludes that romans will win as "anti-chinese" and you also seem to threaten people online just because they believe that the han will lose to the romans. Lol so funny, id like to put you into a circus.

hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking

Another reason why I dont take you seriously. Threatning someone online and now this. Freakin hilarious (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P

Sorry but to be honest your the one whos selectivly reading. You first stated that Shaolin monks will own everyone, then I was able to prove that shaolin monks will lose to cavalry and archer warriors(which took like 5 danm posts just for it to get into your thick skull). Then you claim that Shaolin monks own everyone who doesnt use archery and bows which I later proved that other warriors train just as hard and that they have the advantge of the shield. Later I prov
ed once again that other weapon using classess can defeat shaolin monks with no effort thanks to weapons, shield armor they used. Finally you stated that shaolin monks will own everyone in a fist fight, which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Then you finally conclude after all that senseless bull$hit of some kind of hippie statement "different environments different winners blah blah". Which I NEVER EVER AGREED TO. A stone floor wont make any difference between a spartan and a shaolin monk to a wooden floor.

You conclude using poor logic like "they can do back flips and punch really really fast(which is hard (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 god I love saying that if gives me a chuckle).

Do you still think that shaolin monks will own everyone?

If you say yes: your arrogance shows and you even admitted that they wont
If you say no: then I guess your poor logical skills and lack of common sense shows.

And you're so hopelessly stuck to the backflips and $hit argument? Have you been evolving lately and read ON? That argumetn is beaten to death already, and plus it's already BEEN PROVEN that you ate your own words with the mongol thing. you never did refute my stuff upahead about you and rome did you? Yes just because I think you're one thick-skinned arrogant ignorant @$$ means I'm Chinese and I'm a Chinese nationalist to boot. Unlike you, I let others correct me (look up Unregister's post) while your thickhead think you're absolutely correct. I did admit that I was generalizing too much did I? When people on the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean forums think you're a dumbass, that's gotta be saying something.

  which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Using one of your "tactics" against you, show me the proof. Don't make me laugh by using some questionable instance. And god damn fix your damn post, i had trouble reading that $hit

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 24 2005, 06:05 PM

[Mr. Tree]

[quote=EvilAsianDude,Sep 25 2005, 04:56 AM]
My god you people are ridiculous. You Chinese nationalists are so plenty, unfortunatly the quality of your arguments is poor just like the quality of Chinese armies.- Plenty but low in quality.

[quote]Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
[/quote]

No Duh? I think im well aware of that, unfortunatly you couldnt understand the main point of my post. QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND GET TO THE POINT. I state how the romans will win, you b!tch like a dog at my statement with a bunch of bloated garbage and waste my time. In fact your doing the same thing right now. Lets look at your entire post so far-

[quote]Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

[quote]And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:[/quote]

Please, if they were long and low on quality im pretty sure youll have no trouble crushing my points. Please do so rather than your constant low class trash talking.

[quote]It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."[/quote]

Then I guess this means you need to learn to read.

[quote]They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.[/quote]

No they havent, all theyve stated was a bunch of crap like
Han can farm more
Han can make more iron weapons
A different type of huns beat a divided roman empire full of barbarian mercinaries therefore the han should win

blah blah blah.
[quote]The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.[/quote]

Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality.

[quote]Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations.[/quote]

Yes im aware of the conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes. Besides that China for most of history had the largest population in the world. Of course a lot of land is necessary.

[quote]It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.[/quote]

Conquest of other chinese or much smaller tribes. Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese). And you tell me that the Chinese were expert tacticians. Much like how 60-80k mongols conquered all of China or how 303,000 chinese were killed in a single battle while the other side didnt even lost 3000 troops.

[quote]Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.[/quote]

I cant crush your arguments mainly because you dont have any. Your entire post so far doesnt even mention why the han will win. What is there for me to crush? Nothing, what a waste of my time.

[quote]Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself. [/quote]

You cant call me a troll when I happen to be arguing and part of the debate. Point troll posts with nothing but name calling = trolling. You and mr. tree both fit the term "trolling" nicely.

[/quote]

oh really Korean war anyone? if i remember right the south Koreans got runned over.... and u guys had a 900 000 strong SK army with UN surport (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) US trained and US armed (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

we had weapons left over from ww2 and stil lriped ur asses open

[Mr. Tree]

[quote=EvilAsianDude,Sep 25 2005, 05:08 AM]
[quote]Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.[/quote]

Right, whatever and time and time again youve show how pathetic you are. So sad. You threaten to beat me up in real life lol. You claim that your not going to waste any more time with me yet you just replied to me lol.

[quiote]rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....[/quote]

if you had so much as common sense I used the example of that battle of salsu to show how insecure and how you view the Chinese. When that guy posted the battle of salsu you instantly insulted him, I dont remeber what you posted but I do remember you posting how its fake, lies and resorted to trash talking him despite it being recorded in history. Yes we all know how insecure and immature you are. After all you call anyone who concludes that romans will win as "anti-chinese" and you also seem to threaten people online just because they believe that the han will lose to the romans. Lol so funny, id like to put you into a circus.

[quote]hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking[/quote]

Another reason why I dont take you seriously. Threatning someone online and now this. Freakin hilarious (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2


[quote]To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P [/quote]

Sorry but to be honest your the one whos selectivly reading. You first stated that Shaolin monks will own everyone, then I was able to prove that shaolin monks will lose to cavalry and archer warriors(which took like 5 danm posts just for it to get into your thick skull). Then you claim that Shaolin monks own everyone who doesnt use archery and bows which I later proved that other warriors train just as hard and that they have the advantge of the shield. Later I proved once again that other weapon using classess can defeat shaolin monks with no effort thanks to weapons, shield armor they used. Finally you stated that shaolin monks will own everyone in a fist fight, which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Then you finally conclude after all that senseless bull$hit of some kind of hippie statement "different environments different winners blah blah". Which I NEVER EVER AGREED TO. A stone floor wont make any difference between a spartan and a shaolin monk to a wooden floor.

You conclude using poor logic like "they can do back flips and punch really really fast(which is hard (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 god I love saying that if gives me a chuckle).

Do you still think that shaolin monks will own everyone?

If you say yes: your arrogance shows and you even admitted that they wont
If you say no: then I guess your poor logical skills and lack of common sense shows.

[/quote]

there isnt like a rule that i have to follow, besides im not actually using effort replying to ur crap, im just stating facts and common sense which dispels most of the crap ur spewing

[lilasiankid]

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/ts_vaj/fighting.jpg)

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Sep 24 2005, 07:49 PM

[Col]

LOL Nice!!!

[Gatts]

oh seit hahahahahahahha pwn

[Mr. Tree]

ROFL ahahahaha!!

[The_Master]

How did "Samurai vs Roman Soldier" turn into Han vs. Rome?

and I see EvilAznDude is still trying to sell his tetsudo theory. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rotflmao.gif)




now this guy is amusing, a real historian:

A Samurai would win in all cases..  Samurais arent just blade wielding morons.. They are swift quick.. have so many weapons..  Alot of Ninjas are really Samurais.  So you can imagine how much more a Samurai had to offer on the battlefield than just mere standardized Western stances (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 . That whole Samurai/Ninja seperation was a commercial showcase for modern days..  In reality Samurais and Ninjas never stuck by any honor code to a specific allegiance based on type.  They honored their clan and that was about it...  Why do you think Euros were unable to conquer Japan like they did other nations and establish colonies during the Age of Discovery?  Ive seen Spartans fight in the movies and it's still way too slow and their weaponry might be heavier but it's not as strong or deadly as a Kitana.  If let a couple thousand Samurai do their work against the Roman Army and the rest of Europe back in the day, I guarantee you there would be No Europe today.  It would not exist.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2
(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

This post has been edited by The_Master: Sep 27 2005, 07:32 PM

[UnregisteredUser]

Apparently, playing civil with EvilAsianDude isn't enough to make him realize how stupid his arguments are.

My god you people are ridiculous. You Chinese nationalists are so plenty, unfortunatly the quality of your arguments is poor just like the quality of Chinese armies.- Plenty but low in quality.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

Just how old are you? You sound remarkably like that certain "10 year-old" that you brought up a few posts ago. In fact, he might just be you, albeit the quality of your posts make it seem like your mental age is far below 10. It would seem like you're trying to learn how to talk - can you say "stupid Chinese nationalists....."? No seriously, is that all you can throw out to attack the other person's credibility, ie everyone that does not agree with the "master historian" (master idiot that is) are all "Chinese nationalists"? Yes, I'm sure everyone who proves your points wrong are all "Chinese nationalists", right? No, perhaps you need to start using your brain more.

No Duh? I think im well aware of that, unfortunatly you couldnt understand the main point of my post. QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND GET TO THE POINT.

LOL. You see, despite his stupidity and inability to read or comprehend, he still has to throw in his $hitty points in an attempt to prove me wrong or make me look stupid. I'll post it one more time and this time, actually read it:

Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:I t's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

I state how the romans will win, you b!tch like a dog at my statement with a bunch of bloated garbage and waste my time. In fact your doing the same thing right now. Lets look at your entire post so far-

And your posts are not "a bunch of bloated garbage"? Believe me, your garbage posts have wasted much more than just my time, which unfortunately I don't have much for this forum. Apparently, I'm not the only one who has conflict with your garbage posts.

I'll even highlight what I stated that should've (though didn't - unfortunately) go through your incredibly thick head since you've proven that you haven't read my post enough.

Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

Now go open a dictionary and look up those words I've highlighted. Then come back and start debating with me again.

This post has been edited by UnregisteredUser: Sep 28 2005, 05:26 AM

[UnregisteredUser]

Please, if they were long and low on quality im pretty sure youll have no trouble crushing my points. Please do so rather than your constant low class trash talking.

I don't. Your posts are just way too long and full of garbage. And, unlike you, I have a real life to attend to and don't waste all my time sitting on a computer with all the time in the world and masturbating about baseless garbage like how pathetic the Chinese supposedly were in history or trying to show just how pathetic Chinese nationalists are when you yourself fall nothing short of being an egotistical Korean nationalist who's just as ridiculous and dumb as those Chinese nationalists you just love to vent about.

Expect a fully reply in a week or so since apparently, I'm pretty busy this week. So consider yourself lucky and celebrate however you want, ie egotistical Korean nationalist style - "Chinese with their peasant farmies sux! They're like the Persians! Koreans are like the Spartans and Salsu is the Asian Thermopylae! Koreans are the 'center of Asian civilization'! They're bestest best ever! the ottoman empire is korean!! woohoo!!! they know history!!!" blah blah blah and all the other bull$hit that comes along with being a dumb nationalist, because the time you have now you will enjoy much more than when your points will be crushed, and, as we all know, the "master historian" (master idiot and Korean nationalist is what is) does not like people who disagree with his points and those "infidels" should be termed "Chinese nationalists", right?

Then I guess this means you need to learn to read.

No, it means you need to get a new brain since it seems the one you have now isn't functioning, or at least not well enough to think logically. It also means you have to stop using your a$$ as your source since you only seem to spill out bull$hit.

No they havent, all theyve stated was a bunch of crap like

Man, this is seriously tiring. You seriously need to learn how to read or use your brain, that is, if you even have one. I'll just repost what I stated earlier:

They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.

Now go back to the old thread and check for the links from allempires.com and chinahistoryforum.com. If you can't even do that, then I don't know how you can possibly learn anything.

Han can farm more
Han can make more iron weapons

Right. I should've known better. That is, how can a pathetic amateur like you understand the significance of these advantages the Han had over the Roman empire? I'll just do a brief summary of the significance of these advantages since warhead's posts have pretty much elaborated on them.

Better Han agricultural technology means far more and better output and production than Roman empire. That means food supplies are more ample and logistical difficulties are lessened to some extent; the problem of properly and adequately feeding soldiers has plagued just about every army in the world that has possibly existed and many times this could mean victory or defeat. That means that if the Han and the Roman empire, assuming they were neighbors to each other, engaged in a full-fledged war against each other that the Han, because of economic superiority and more resources, may have the upper edge, meaning they could sustain and endure far more casualties in a war than Rome could. One of the reasons why the Republic finally emerged victorious in the Punic wars against Carthage was because of Rome's superior resources and manpower potential. This simply can't be ignored.

Better ability to produce far more iron weapons and also of better quality as well as far more steel weapons than Rome ever had done means that the quality and quantity of iron and steel weapons in the Han empire is far higher than of those in imperial Rome. This may indicate that the average Han soldier was better armed and better equipped than the imperial Roman counterpart since more and better quality weapons means more soldiers could be equipped; I wonder how this never got through your thick head. The level and quality as well as composition of the weapons an empire used and its metallurgical technology also can't be overlooked. One of the reasons why the hyksos could overrun Egypt of the early Second Intermediate rulers of the 13th Dynasty was because of the chariots and the better bronze weapons of the hyksos. The same regarding better iron weapons apply for the Assyrian conquest of Egypt. One of the reasons why the Spanish, with such a small force, were able to conquer the Mexicas was because of the apparently far superior weapons of the Spanish, being made of iron and steel; the best the Mexicas had was wooden weapons with obsidian blades, which was still powerful in its own right, but not enough to defeat Spanish iron and steel. In fact, one doesn't need to look very far. The success of the Xianbei invasions of China in the 4th century CE can be attributed partially to their acquisition of high-quality iron weapons from the borders of China, largely through raids of the border markets and storehouses. In fact, one of the reasons why some Xianbei groups in earlier than revolted was because of the excessive control of iron weapons from China to the north before Jin Wudi's time.

A different type of huns beat a divided roman empire full of barbarian mercinaries therefore the han should win

blah blah blah.

And what was your response to that type of ridiculous logic? You replied with something like "that different type of huns the chinese faced were far less powerful and less united so the chinese could only beat weak tribes so they suck but then the super uber-ROMANS fought against super-strong attila huns who were more united and powerful the romans win and the chinese suck and lose, the end". Even after you were proven wrong, you still continued ranting with that type of logic. Please tell me how sensible is that? Do words like hypocrite and stupidity ring a bell?

Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality.

Who are you to talk of "glorious victories"? Your posts pretty much reveal how lacking you are in knowledge even when it comes to your lovely Romans. By that, it's blatantly obvious you operate and spill your trash on this forum with an agenda far different from "looking at facts". To make you and your garbage synonymous with "facts" is to do a great disgrace and injustice to the word "fact(s)" itself.

Talking to you is like talking to a stone wall. You simply can't understand that examples of "Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality" exist in just about every state that existed in world history if you actually did something called reading and not reading Korean nationalistic trash but serious books written by well-informed scholars. China is not unique in this case. And even if I bring up examples of Chinese troops with inferior numbers defeating foreign armies (which there are quite a bunch of examples), you'll most likely ignore it, trash it, or distort with your bull$hit and make dumb assumptions about something you have know clue about; you'd say something like "crappy chinese armies could only beat their own chinese armies. no one cares." or "the chinese beat a weak tribe, therefore the chinese suck, they'll lose to romans". So its pretty much useless since you'll most likely ignore it or downplay it. Besides, I'm running out of time and I don't feel like writing pages and pages of Chinese history right now. Warhead already made a list of some battles in Chinese history in which Chinese troops with inferior numbers defeated troops with far larger numbers than their own. So again, you need to open your eyes, turn on your brain, and do something called reading and thinking.

Yes im aware of the conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes. Besides that China for most of history had the largest population in the world. Of course a lot of land is necessary.

LOL. You see. Making statements like these pretty much shows just how dumb, stupid, ignorant and foolish you truly are and how your posts are pretty much garbage. Downplaying the role of China in world history because of Chinese imperialism and expansion against your beloved Koreans is already enough, and now, because of your irresponsibility and lack of knowledge, you now make dumb-@ss assumptions about China's neighbors and downplay them so as to fit your agenda of "China is weak". Please, just what are you aware of? You obviously aren't aware of how dumb and stupid your garbage is.

And did you think the reason why throughout history, China had one of the largest populations in the world was because Chinese just love to have sex and make babies? Or are you stupid? I think the latter's far more accurate than the former. Scientifically, it wouldn't make much sense but then again, you're anything but scientific. Especially since, apparently, technology in the world back then was less advanced than it is now and food supplies were generally lower back then, the conditions have to be right in order for significant population growths to happen in history. The reason behind China's large population can be attributed largely to her advanced agricultural and other civil technology which far surpassed most of the world until the 18th-19th centuries, and this technology produced large food supplies which helped population growth.

And large populations in many situations don't render one military far superior to another. The population of the Roman empire during the time of Trajan was only a few million short of having the same population as that of the Han empire at its height, yet Rome had suffered many defeats before or after. Obviously huge sedentary populations using only numbers won't have much of an advantage against peoples like, say, steppe nomads, unless they had an effective military. Parthians, Sarmatians, and Huns were only some of the peoples Rome had great difficulty fighting against and Rome never came close to conquering all these people. By that, huge population obviously doesn't make the Roman military superior to that of the Parthians, Sarmatians, and Huns, and the latter three obviously weren't just "weak tribes". But then, you'll never call them "weak tribes" since it'll make your belove Romans "look weak". Yet you ignore the fact that China had far more successes and been far more successful in fighting against the steppe nomads than Rome ever had. Consider the reign of Yuandi during the Early Han when the Han empire gained almost unipolar power status in east central Asia and East Asia when Huhanyeh of the Eastern Xiongnu became a vassal of the Early Han and Han power extended as far west as Sogdiana when Zhizhi Chanyu of the Western Xiongnu was defeated and conquered in 36 BC by Cheng Tang. The Tarim was also under the control of the Han and when the Wusun were aware of these Han victories, their allegiance with the Han caused many of the states of the west to submit to being vassals of the Han. Or what about the conquest of the Northern Xiongnu, whose remnants were speculated by some historians to have been the founders of the Black Huns who invaded Europe centuries later, by Dou Xian in 89 CE, who led a force of only 8,000 Han Chinese soldiers with a large number of steppe auxiliaries that included Wuhuan, Southern Xiongnu, Xianbei, Qiang, et al.? Dou Xian drove the Xiongnu west. At the time, the southern Xiongnu also submitted to the Later Han. And what about Ban Chao's reconquest of the Tarim basin and his defeat of a huge force of Kushan soldiers (the Hou Hanshu says it was 70,000, also I doubt you know anything about the Kushans and who they really were, and again you'll just most likely denounce them as just some "weak tribes" but looking at the facts and history will prove just how wrong you are so no more "weak tribes" BS - I'll just add for now that the Kushans were responsible for overthrowing the Greco-Bactrian kingdom that was one of the successor states of Alexander the Great) who invaded the Tarim basin? Rome achieved nothing of this sort or anything close to this in their conflicts with steppe peoples; the best Rome did was under Trajan who invaded a very politically fragmented Parthia in which his conquest of Mesopotamia and the surrounding regions met without pretty much any resistance, if at all, from the Parthian army. And the Xiongnu as well as other steppe peoples like the Yuezhi/Kushans, Wusun, et al, were anything but "weak tribes". Rome would've suffered numerous defeats against these powerful steppe peoples like they did at Carrhae against the Parthians who used similar steppe tactics but with less powerful bows.

In fact, since you've claimed that it was "conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes", you're going to have to prove to me how peoples such as the Xiongnu, Wusun, Yuezhi/Kushans, Wuhuan, et al were "weak small tribes", that is, if you can even recognize these names that would seem foreign to you since you most likely know nothing about them.

[UnregisteredUser]

Conquest of other chinese or much smaller tribes.

LOL. Oh I see, so it's "other weak chinese" or "much smaller tribes"? Seriously, why don't you care to elaborate and explain on who, what, where, how, and why these "tribes" were? In fact, I doubt you could even come up with a sentence of any substance regarding these "tribes" which you denounce in order to make China look weak.

I think it's far better for someone who doesn't know anything or doesn't have a clue about what he's saying to keep quiet than for that same person to spill out bull$hit and pretends he knows something (the wrong thing) he has absolutely no clue about. Simply put, just shut the fuk up.

Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese).

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

Please, in order to save yourself from further embarrassment, just take my advice from above and do yourself a favor - shut the fuk up.

Who the fuk are you to say something like "Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies"? You haven't done anything to show that you've studied Chinese history, if any at all, and now, you, assuming yourself to be a "master historian" (yes, you are a master idiot) tells me to "Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies"? Seriously, all you've done is shown yourself to be a dumb, stupid, retarded Korean nationalist who's also an arrogant fool pretending he knows something and uttering bull$hit when in fact he knows none.

You say "all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese)". You claim you have studied all the Chinese battles in history. Certainly an overexaggerated, false, and haughty claim you made there. Great, now to back it up, you're going to have to do just that. Name me all the battles in Chinese history and show that every single one of them involved Chinese victories only winning by sheer numbers "unless unless they were fighting other chinese" and all Chinese losses were by troops of inferior numbers. I doubt a stupid pompous fool like you can even do the first step since naming all the battles of Chinese history and closely examining them would require pages and pages of research papers, which, if done by you, will most likely contain trash.

And you tell me that the Chinese were expert tacticians.

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_rolleyes.gif) Fool, and when did I ever say that? Apparently, your all-too-conscious bias, ego, and your excitement in attempting to show that I'm a Chinese nationalist has led you to make such dumb statements like that made above. You're either blind or can't think straight if you think I've said "the Chinese were expert tacticians." You know, if you think you've done your fellow Koreans a blessing by "beating and fighting Chinese nationalists", you clearly haven't. All you've done is make yourself look like a fool and have been wasting our time by making dumb assumptions about something you have absolutely no clue about, that is, Chinese history and her supposedly "weak" status. You've also done your fellow Koreans a disgrace because you've now given the image that there are many Koreans who are just as horribly nationalistic and prone to distorting just as you are.

Much like how 60-80k mongols conquered all of China

That's clearly wrong. It wasn't just "60-80k mongols" conquering all of China. Ridiculous. It was more like 110,000 or so plus Mongols invading a disunited China, specifically the Jin empire in 1211 CE and subsequent invasions which required far more numerous troops to be able to be drawn from Mongolia. The Jin empire, at its heyday in the middle of the 12th century CE, being perhaps the most powerful empire in East Asia, had greatly declined. The cavalry component of its army was in decline, the court was corrupt, there were some peasant rebellions before the Mongol invasion in 1211 CE, the course of the Yellow River had changed and caused tremendous damage to the peasants and crops, and, furthermore, the mishandling of the Jin troops at Huan-er-zui contributed greatly to the destruction of one of the best troops of the Jin empire. Furthermore, in 1206 CE, the Jin had just fought a war against the Song and the majority of its troops were stationed guarding against the Song in the south. In 1215 CE, Red Jacket Rebellion in Shandong broke out and aided the Mongol invasion of China. And don't give me the "huge population" crap because the majority of the peasant population of the Jin empire hardly contributed to the fighting and battles against the Mongols. Invading a corrupt and greatly declining empire that only had half of China and filled with unhappy peasants and yet the conquest of this declining empire still took more than 20 years of hard-fighting with great Mongol losses at Zhongdu, Guide, and Dachangyuan, is hardly an easy task for the Mongols. And before you call me a Chinese nationalist or denounce my explanation as nationalistic do some research on who the Jurchens were and their relations to the Jin dynasty and also who the founders and rulers of the Jin dynasty were and then see if your "he's a Chinese nationalist" theory makes any sense at all.

And this was just the Jin empire. The Song empire in southern China held on until 1279 CE, and the campaign against the Song was one of the hardest campaigns the Mongols ever conducted, perhaps coming close behind the campaign against the Jin. The stalemate was broken when Muslim counterweight trebuchets were brought in from the Mongol dominions in the Middle East and used to batter down the walls of Xiangyang, which had been besieged by the Mongols for about 5 years. The conquest of the Song wouldn't have been possible without the defection of the leading generals of the Song navy and the Mongol built-up of their own navy with help from Song advisors. This was hardly an easy job.

So why don't you tell me about the Mongol conquest of China and all the battles, et al. about it? I doubt you can hardly make a sentence about it without the sentence being full of garbage and false spiel. It's blatantly obvious you haven't done any study on the Mongol conquest of China other than simply googling and making up your own version of the history.

or how 303,000 chinese were killed in a single battle while the other side didnt even lost 3000 troops.

Oh and you might also want to add "oh those super-uber powerful mighty Koreans were so brilliant and full of smart tactics that their army just stood onto the battlefield and those tall and might Korean warriors just beat the hell out of 303,000 chinese (I don't even know where the hell you got that number from) with their great awe and strength and might tactics, see we Koreans are so powerful we could've beaten the chinese but then the koreans were just all too humane and peaceful and didn't pursue a warlike policy unlike the old evil chinese who were always bullies using huge peasant armies oh yea we koreans are the best!!! chinese sux!!!" into your book called "Why the Chinese suck in history and why Koreans are better". Yes, and you're also a master idiot. You made it seem like the Koreans just whooped on
"303,000" Chinese with "smart tactics". The fact was, when the Sui vanguard of about 180,000 approached Pyongyang, the Sui army was literally starving to death, already in low morale, since the general in charge of grain ships couldn't communicate with the vanguard general, yet the Koguryo army still refused to come out of the walls of Pyongyang and accept the Sui challenge. Looking at this situation, the Sui vanguard retreated in disorder and, near a stream, a part of the Sui vanguard on the outhern side of the bank was hit by a Koguryo attack which made the Sui retreat more disorderly. The result was that the Sui vanguard was wiped out largely by starvation and the cold weather, and this defeat caused the other besieging Sui armies to withdraw from Koguryo territory. This defeat is recorded in the Sui shu, the section on the biography of Yangdi, as well as the Zhizhi tongjian. As for the "3000" you've got no source to back it up and so it should be taken as your trash. So the Sui defeat in this war wasn't in any way a result of an imaginary battle where some super uber-Korean warriors whooped on hordes of Chinese, which is BS, but was a result of an inept and foolish decision made by the commander-in-chief of the Sui forces in Koguryo in which the primary killers were the starvation and the weather, with the Koguryo forces merely plucking the fruits of victory from the already defeated Sui forces.

In fact, there are far more disastrous defeats in battle in Chinese history than the Sui war against Koguryo but the fact that you mentioned it and tried to distort and twist it into some sort of great battle in which supposedly some super-uber Koreans whoop on hordes of Chinese soldiers is proof of the manifestation of your all-too-conscious bias.

I cant crush your arguments mainly because you dont have any. Your entire post so far doesnt even mention why the han will win.

LOL. You see, despite his stupidity and inability to read or comprehend, he still has to throw in his $hitty points in an attempt to prove me wrong or make me look stupid. I'll post it one more time and this time, actually read it:

Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said: It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.

What is there for me to crush?

As for the composition of my reply, I'll just repost what I said earlier:

Expect a fully reply in a week or so since apparently, I'm pretty busy this week. So consider yourself lucky and celebrate however you want, ie egotistical Korean nationalist style - "Chinese with their peasant farmies sux! They're like the Persians! Koreans are like the Spartans and Salsu is the Asian Thermopylae! Koreans are the 'center of Asian civilization'! They're bestest best ever! the ottoman empire is korean!! woohoo!!! they know history!!!" blah blah blah and all the other bull$hit that comes along with being a dumb nationalist, because the time you have now you will enjoy much more than when your points will be crushed, and, as we all know, the "master historian" (master idiot and Korean nationalist is what is) does not like people who disagree with his points and those "infidels" should be termed "Chinese nationalists", right?

Nothing, what a waste of my time.

You know, if you think you've done your fellow Koreans a blessing by "beating and fighting Chinese nationalists", you clearly haven't. All you've done is make yourself look like a fool and have been wasting our time by making dumb assumptions about something you have absolutely no clue about, that is, Chinese history and her supposedly "weak" status. You've also done your fellow Koreans a disgrace because you've now given the image that there are many Koreans who are just as horribly nationalistic and prone to distorting just as you are.

You cant call me a troll when I happen to be arguing and part of the debate. Point troll posts with nothing but name calling = trolling. You and mr. tree both fit the term "trolling" nicely.

I can call you whatever I want, and that includes calling you a dumb Korean nationalist and a stupid moron who can't back up any of his apparently false bull$hit with any sources at all, which are all perfect descriptions of you. You're going to be called and labelled that because that's what you are and what you're doing shows you to be nothing short of those descriptions. As for name-calling, you've done no less yourself so you can stop acting like you're the innocent one when you're actually the hypocrite. In reality, you're the real troll and if you think you're the "master historian", you're actually the master idiot.

[BigBenChow]

yeah 1v1 samurai would win

NO way...haven't you seen Gladiator? No Samurai can beat Russell Crow...Not even Tom Cruise.

[Col]

Russell Crow and his cell phone > everyone