LOL Nice!!!

oh seit hahahahahahahha pwn

ROFL ahahahaha!!

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

and I see EvilAznDude is still trying to sell his tetsudo theory.




now this guy is amusing, a real historian:


2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2

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



2 2 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.



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:





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.



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

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?



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.



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:



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.



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.



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?



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.



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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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:





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?



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.



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.

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

Russell Crow and his cell phone > everyone

lol i wouldnt wanna get in front of that guy while his armed with a phone 2