Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 21 July 2010

China B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Chinese B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force

Edits

Since it's not actually a historical battle, I added this phrase: "However, this is primarily a legend based on mythicals characters." Also added coat of plates as an armor variety as depicited in Qin Shi Huang's terracotta army. Intranetusa (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

dispite shoudnt it say? in line 3 in paragraph "ancient china" ", depite the cultural challenge " s/depite/despite Foant

Why is this page protected?

Yea i wonder that too...Foant 21:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that I could not edit this page to fix a spelling mistake. Why are we being locked out? (This remark was inserted on March 17, 2005)

I've unprotected this page since I couldn't find any reason why it was protected in the first place. — Dan | Talk 04:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dunno.. maybe the Chinese government paid wikipedia to protect it to how they think history should be written?????? Just like history written in American text books, it's always the enemy who starts the war.. - Wh1t3 D3@th

Which one? Taiwan (Republic of China) or mainland Communist China (People's Republic of China)? Also, I believe PRC mainland China blocks a lot of content on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China Intranetusa (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything is myth! CantorFriedman (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (military units)

Forgive the spam, but I'm trying to round up wikipedians with an interest in international military history to help work out some conventions for the names of military units. If you are interested in that sort of thing, please visit Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (military units) and join the discussions on the talk page. — B.Bryant 17:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firearms

When did Western firearms start to become better than Chinese firearms? What dynasty and century? Zachorious 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say Qing. Exact date I'm not sure, but the Ming used firearms extensively against the Qing. Maybe 50-60% of the Ming army was equipped with firearms IIRC. -- Миборовский 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty, not Qing. Ming Dynasty (1300s-1600s)didn't have cannons, arquebuses or pistols, but by 1475 gunpowder projectile weapons had become the norm in Europe. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

they definately had cannon... and its not like arquebuses, muskets, or pistols could hold there own against light melee infantry, calvary, or well placed cannon, just europe was in love with heavy armor --1698 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In the latter part of Ming Dynasty. The Chinese records on the imported Red Clothed Cannon (紅衣大炮 from Portugal clearly stated its superiority. See 明史 or articles related: Xu Guangqi, death of Nurhaci, Yuan Chonghuan etc. --AQu01rius 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the first firearm "guns" were created in China by the mid 1350s (a sort of hand cannon). It then made its way to the Middle East where Middle Easterners made the firearms better. From the Middle East it made its way to Southern Europe where the Europeans became the best firearm crafters in the world until the 1900s. Something like that I think. Zachorious 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The first firearm guns were bronze cast guns made during the Song Dynasty 12th-13th century. The Middle East did have excellent gunpowder technology (ie. Great Bombard in the sack of Constantinople). Compared to Europe however, early and mid Ming era guns and cannons are still superior. By the late Ming/early Qing, European gun technology had exceeded China. Intranetusa (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes

We need to deal with stereotypes of Chinese military history on this article... examples include

1. The One-Million-Peasant Horde
2. The Fireworks-Not-Guns
3. The Pacifist Chinaman
4. The Spear-Wielding Primitive

Anyone up to it? -- Миборовский 03:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. 5. The Yellow Peril Mongol -- Миборовский 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hey can we find some pictorial representations of Chinese soldiers from different periods of history? I think it would really add to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons and military technology

Please clarify in what way Chinese crossbows were superior. For example the strong double-bow arcuballistas were very unhandy compared to the strong arbalests of with steel prods of Europe and the composite prods of the Islamic world. Bronze trigger mechanisms in Chinese crossbows. Other cultures did not have the bronze working ability to make triggers as fine.

Chinese contribution of the formula for gunpowder implies that the complete formula and the use of blackpowder in guns was first developed in China. This is disputed as the Islamic world and Europe have also claims and it is not yet clear who invented GUNPOWDER. What is evident is that saltpetre had its origin in China and mixtures of saltpetre and sulfur were exported for medical purposes. This can be modified to various forms of Black powder or other explosive and incendary mixtures (with naphta in Egyptian grenades during the crusades). The Taiping Rebellion did use muskets and did develop musket tactics. "The Chinese government thus systematically suppressed the development of early modern weapons systems." This has to clarify during what timeframes. Furthermore developments during the Yuan dynasty could be added, such as submarines and torpedos.

"Competition between European powers was far more involved in shock tactics in which speed was discarded for increased protection." Please make it clear of what timeframe you talk. The heavy knights for example did have protection instead of speed. Wandalstouring 09:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism found on this page The line "Legalist thinkers from Shang Yang to Li Si, both Prime Ministers ruling under Chuck Norris, of Qin, " is clearly vandalism. Namely the name Chuck Norris does not belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.142.21 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

language

The language in this article needs to be cleaned up, I'm going to edit it to fix any grammar problems. Master z0b (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are some silly statements in this article that go beyond simple grammar "china had the most advanced military for the longest time, 200BC to 16th century"? huh? I don't think it's even necessary to add a cite source tag, it's clearly a statement so broad and POV it needs to be taken out. I'm not saying China wasn't advanced, but no country could claim such superiority for such a long time. If that was the case how did the Mongols conquer China? Surely the most advanced military in the world couldn't be conquered by a primitive steppe tribe. Master z0b (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yer,I agree with what you said. However,you should also be aware that advanced military does not guarantee victory in war. There are many other factors such as economics, politics,natural disaster etc.202.36.179.66 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There are no inline references. Many of the numbers seem off. The tone just doesn't seem right.

For example:

I've added this template .Pisharov (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is to be revamped

I plan to revamp this article entirely, just like I did to Economic history of China(which end up being split into two articles and reaching 100kb}, under the new name Chinese Army (Pre-1911). It will not be as large as the former article though. If you are interested, look at User:Teeninvestor/Chinese Army (Pre-1911). Suggestions are welcome. I will be taking material from this article. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Teen, one of the fundamantal theme of pre 1911 Chinese military history, is that the control, and command of the Army. Majority of the time, emperor was the Supreme Commander, and only the emperor has the Tiger Tally 兵符. Only during Qing dynasty, Zeng Guofan and Tuanlian had began the loss of the military control of the emperor. Arilang 22:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Items considered essential for a military commander

(1)帥印:The official seal of the Supreme Commander, normally was given to the commander by the Emperor, or the King. If ever the King decided to withdraw the official seal, then the military commander would lose the job, possible his life too. (2)上方宝劍 is another symbol of authority from the King. The function of 上方宝劍 is 先斬後奏: To exceute first, then report to the King. These happened many times in ancient Chinese history.

Throughout Chinese military history, successful military commanders, at the end, mostly were killed by their King or Emperor. This happened again and again. Most famous were 岳飛 of the Southern Song period, and also 林彪 Lin Biao, 贺龍 He Long, 彭德懷 Peng Dehuai. Arilang 03:39, 1 August 2009

Comparison of Japanese samurais, European Knights, Chinese general, nomad tribal chief

Teen, maybe a section on the comparison of the above four:

1. Japanese samurais is about 忠: loyality
2. European Knights is about Power and ability, achivement. 忠 is out of the question.
3. Chinese generals would be about 忠義. 義 is very difficult to translate, because it is not a western concept. The best symbol of 忠義 is Guan Yu 关雲長, or 关公, if you watch Hong Kong gangster movies, you might have seen in every police station, there is a small statue of 关公, and every policemen, including 鬼佬(means English policemen), they all perform the ritual of worshipping in front of 关公.
4. Nomad tribal chief would be Kill Kill Kill, nothing much. Arilang 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

仁義之師 VS 殘暴之師

Teen, throughout Chinese ancient history, quite a few times Han Chinese nearly got wiped out completely: Wu Hu, Mongols, Manchus, and Imperial Japanese Army. So it is important to view history in the correct persective. I mean, Xinhai revolution, Second Sino-Japanese war would be 仁義之師, that means Manchus and Imperial Japan Army would be 殘暴之師. Arilang 04:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

孫子兵法

Famous quotes:

1. 兵者，國之大事，死生之地，存亡之道，不可不察也。The openning sentence of 孫子兵法.死生之地,存亡之道 translation:It is the land of live or die, it is the way of survive or perish. By making this statement as the openning sentence, 孫子 gave a warning to all the Kings, Emperors, or military commanders, be careful before you go into war, you may score victory, but at the same time, you may perish in the process.
2. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善也﹔不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。

Translation:Any army which had won every battles, is not the best Army.(I think what he meant was, if an army had won too many battles, soon it would lose, because the soldiers plus the commander would become too big-headed. 不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也. Translation: If ever a commander(or Army) can force it's opponent into submission, without going into war, then the commander(or Army) would be the best of the best. Arilang 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ming-Kotte War

I would like to include this unique episode in Chinese military history but I don't quite know how to fit it in. Navalinterest (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On balance

The article seems to place great care at stressing the progressive character of the Chinese military. However, on balance it would be interesting to know why

• Chinese armies relied so long on chariot warfare,
• why cavalry, both in its light and heavy version, was introduced so late,
• the lack of a proper navy for most of its history
• and the slow development, if not early stagnation, of gunpowder weapons, including the fact that technological impulses after 1500 came almost exclusively from contact with the Western maritime powers and technological transfer of the Jesuits who were entrusted with cannon production. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Chariot warfare was gone post 500 BCE, cavalry was introduced by 300 BCE, while the navy isn't in the scope of this article. Gunpowder weapons developed relatively rapidly until the ascension of the Qing, during which it stagnated. See this quote from Needham about the equipment of a single Chinese battalion:

40 cannon batteries, 3600 thunder-bolt shells, 160 cannons, 200 large and 328 small "grapeshot" cannons, 624 handguns, 300 small grenades, some 6.97 tons of gunpowder and no less than 1,051, 600 bullets, each of 0.8 ounces. Needham remarked that this was "quite some firepower" and the total weight of the weapons were 29.4 tons

Teeninvestor (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chariots were phased out only when cavalry was - slowly - introduced, that is in the 300s BC. At that time, Western Eurasian peoples as far west as Italy were already employing cavalry for centuries, and chariot warfare was a distant memory of the past. China's slowness in adopting gunpowder weapons now is really well attested. Just two randomly picked sources:

China's reponse to light firearms offers a revealing contrast. source

After about 1400 Chinese military technology began to stagnate. source

Of course, it needs intellectual honesty in the first place to look for things which might not sit well with one's own views... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual honesty is what you lack, Gun Powder Ma. I don't need some one who argues that romans invented the taijitu to tell me what intellectual honesty is. As i said, everything you claim is contradicted by reputable scholarly sources. For example, on the point about cavalry, Chinese forces were the first to employ saddles and the stirrup- a technique that was not introduced in Europe until the middle ages. As to light firearms- may I remind you it was the Chinese who invented them (and the fact that the Ming did employ much western gunpowder technlogy readily). Until you show up with reputable sources and stop being a POV warrior, you shouldn't edit this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and certain obsession with superlatives

I tagged the article because I feel it is another attempt by the main author to establish a nationalistic POV and because I think he misrepresents sources. Samples:

• China has the longest period of continuous development of military culture of any civilization in world history and had arguably one of the world's most advanced and powerful military for almost 2,000 years until the 18th century.
• China's armies has had a long history. The military history of China stretches from 2200 BCE to the present day, the longest of any nation in the world. Throughout most of China's existence, the Chinese armies were the most advanced and the most powerful in the world
• These armies were tasked with the twofold goal of defending China and her subject peoples from foreign aggression, and with expanding China's terroritory and influence across Asia. Comment: China's enemies were "aggressors", while China merely "defended" its frontiers....

This all sounds like a wargamer turned Misplaced Pages author and the existence a single source, even if it supports the text, which I very much doubt, does not justify such hyperbolic, far-reaching and strong claims. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, your edits are completely POV. I'm willing to work with other editors, but edits such as "despite many defeats" and "reliance upon western military technology (did not become a significant factor until the 19th century" are complete pOv.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you post verbatim the quotes from Temple which you claim support your text? This is good practice at Misplaced Pages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Jesuits were already in charge of 17th century Chinese foundries on which the late Ming and Manchu dynasty came to rely on heavily: here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

================== More academic sounding article changes I agree with the superlatives... the tone is unacademic :) You need to delete all lines like most powerful etc. Things you might want to note:
- Chinese history and its people were extremely varied. At different periods approaches were different, e.g. there were technologies that were lost, such as the Han Dynasty crossbows, or Shang Dynasty metal working.
- Basically the high points were pre-modern.. I'd say the Song to end of Ming Dynasty, China was relatively militarily weak compare to the Northern nomads who had also begun tech innovations and organization. The high points relatively, were in the Han to T'ang Chinese armies. It was largely
(1) Han Dynasty economy was strong and they were able to recruit massed low-trained yet effective crossbows (which by the way could pierce any metal armor)
(2) the Han and T'ang (who actually were nomads themselves orgiinaly by the way) did employ much cavalry, giving them offensive expansion capabilities against nomads (thus expanding the empire).
(3) Both the Han and T'ang Dynasties combined both strong economics with militaristic traditions.
- Chinese didn't really use gunpowder as much as xbows; it was deemed innacurate and lacked (cost) effectiveness, mostly
#1: Chinese builders dealt with potential cannon weapons by fortifying with mostly sand-like rammed earth (these walls could be *many* meters thicker and higher than any European castle walls.. almost like a very steep hill). When a rocket hit this, it kind of just got stuck in the wall rather than blowing it apart.
(2) crossbow development during the Warring States to T'ang was advanced (and much cheaper), and they were able to pierce any metal armors. So China was able to mass up crossbows at a lower cost. Then again, at the same time, the West has always been to our credit innovative :) it was also just plain put a innovative development with gunpowder weapons to realize their ultimate potential that everyone else missed... though by the way Chinese did theorize many of the tactics realized centuries later.. e.g. Sun Tzu said 2.4k years ago, 'high ground' is such an advantage if anyone could find a way to attack from the sky, that would be the ultimate advantage; thus there actually were experiments using Kites with gunpowder, to fire downward, gut it never materialized.
- chinese metal and steel alloys were also indeed probably the most advanced until the last 400 years; we still don't know how they created some of their steel in early dynasties. One example where a reported contingent of ex-Romans were met in the xinjiang region during one Han compaign vs Parthians (I read this from articles in some PHD stacks at University of Toronto library), in which case Chinese xbows penetrated all the armor and shields of the hoplites.
- Chinese had a *very* thorough official record-keeping for history. Its possible originally several nomadic rulers, not open-minded enough to read up, may have not understood the value for military tradition in the begining —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-added the tag, since the dissens seems to take longer to settle. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sino-French War

No reference to this war here, not seen as a major war involving China ?

_ One quarter of the Chinese fleet destroyed, including all the modernized navy with steamships.

_ Chinese influence over Southern Asia cut at the benefit of another colonial power.

_ Defeat of the new navy paved the way for the Japanese agression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.216.104 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:MILHIST

People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion about this article at WT:MILHIST#Chinese armies (pre-1911)

Why there? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Because discussions here for the past three months have pretty much been between you and Teeninvestor. I'm hoping that discussing the issue at WT:MILHIST will attract a wider audience. 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article as such is not bad, it only needs someone to tell Teeninvestor to please steer clear of the blatant Chinese POV of "one of the world's most advanced armies", "great victories" and "Barbarian aggressors" etc.. For this, one or two more editors pointing out the same thing will do and we can quickly settle this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but from the above section and as Teeninvestor has been reverting you, he doesn't seem to be listening. I'm not familiar with the subject so will take your word on the article not being too bad, but the section title "special weapons" is straight out of a video game, and I cringed when I read it. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, your edits such as the "military technology systems, such as nomadic cavalry" are ill sourced and do not add to the article. I will not accept something blatantly biased as such, and which are unsourced. Also, you did not source any of your arguments on the spread of iron weapons eastword or anything else. "Special weapons" is used, because it is difficult to find a better title for weapons such as poison gas and flamethrowers. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am astounded that your knowledge of Chinese military history is so shallow, but I will provide the necessary sources in time. However, most of your biased claims are unsourced, either, aren't they? Since now three users have voiced some concern as to the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, I re-tagged it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The man who calls "nomadic cavalry" a weapons system calls me shallow? I have invited Pericles to give an assessment, since he has access to most of the sources of

the article, which I don't have at this moment. Even if I did, I would not have the time to fix it. However, I warn you to stop insulting other editors and calling them "wargamers"; I can stick a few far nastier labels if I chose to, but it is editor decorum not to do so. I hope you can maintain at least a basic level of respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I just now took a look at the present form of the article and read a bit of the discussion here. Did Temple (1986) really call flamethrowers and poison gas bombs "exotic weapons"? That's the exact phrase in quotation marks as found here in the article; "exotic" seems like a strange descriptive word to use in this case. When one thinks "exotic" in terms of the Western perspective of the ancient Chinese arsenal, images such as obscure kung fu weapons (like the chain whip) come to mind, but not flamethrowers and poison gas. I don't actually own Temple's book, which I borrowed from the library long ago for the List of Chinese inventions article. However, I don't mind finding citations for various things which currently are not cited.--Pericles of Athens 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the tags. If the wargamer wants to be treated as a Misplaced Pages author, he should start to act like one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you keep on attacking other users, you will be reported to WP:ANI.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for verification

Since the wargamer seems not really well versed in what spirit Misplaced Pages operates, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability holds that When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. For the following, I'd like to have a quote:

• Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring states era.

• This advanced technology was key for the Song army to fend off its barbarian opponents, such as the Khitans, Jur'chens and Mongols.

For the first assertion, Temple (1986) specifically stated on page 248 that: "China's military prowness was not matched by two millenia". Whether you agree with it or not, that is what the source says. Similar statements can be found in many other sources. And as for the importance of gunpowder weapons in defending the Song from barbarian incursions, the Chinese version of Cambridge illustrated history of China states that on page 99 that: "By the 1040's, during the war with the Tanguts, Song military manuals had already instructed commanders to make and manufacture gunpowder weapons for fighting the Tanguts. This later devolved into cannons and muskets" (rough translation).

Temple's source (which I don't have on hand right now), along with Pericles' source about Needham, also affirms the importance of gunpowder weapons to the Song in resisting northern invaders. Historical incidences such as the Battle of Caishi also affirm this. There's overwhelming scholarly consensus on this point, and I don't see why a quote would be needed (would you need a quote to affirm that the Roman Empire collapsed in the 400's?).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If Temple asserts that China's military was unmatched for two millennia, we should explain that it's his opinion. Something along the lines of "according to military historian Robert Temple (or whatever his field is), China's military was unmatched for two millennia". It's an interesting assertion considering the Mongol invasion of China, but if that's Temple's opinion we can include it as long as it's pointed out to be an opinion rather than fact. Please don't bring up the Roman Empire, this article should not try to rehash the speculation that used to be comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was using the collapse of the Roman Empire as an example of scholarly consensus. How's that in anyway bringing up the dispute? Well, I believe that Temple's assertion was specific that China's military technology was unmatched for two millenia. I will add this to the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Mongol invasion of china, the reason the mongols won because they incorporated thousands of Chinese soldiers into their army, and adopted chinese siege technology. They did not use any of their traditional methods of warfare when attacking china. Your assertion about the mongols is totally off the pointДунгане (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's been clarified that in the field of military technology China was "unmatched", you may have a point. However, regarding the earlier, more clumsy and less accurate statement that "China's military was unmatched for two millennia" it was certainly germane. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a sweeping claim is still WP:Undue, whether you can source it or not. In reality, it could be nullified by a single other author who claims for the period in question that the military technology of any another army was the best of its time. Shall I dig for that or do you remove the ethnocentric claim on your own accord? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, a statement that says: "According to historian Robert Temple, so and so" is definitely not suspectible to any of your claims, as we have shown it is your opinion. And the fact is, your sources are not exactly the most reliable. Me being ethnocentric? It wasn't long ago that you claimed Romans invented the Tajitu.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's quote then the exceptional claim of your thrash author. And then I am going to quote assessments of other authors which will contradict this claim. PS: Since, contrary to your edit summary, I am very much engaging in the discussion, I restore the template for the time being. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You had 48 hours to start an ANI and RFC/U, but you did not respond to this discussion. I wouldn't oppose a variety of views on this subject. But it's clear the majority of sources confirm Needham's work.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing. You have done zero in 5 days to deal with this, while starting multiple other disputes. You clearly have nothing to add and are NOT engaged (not to mention your claims have been refuted).Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon

What does Edward Gibbon have to say about Chinese armies in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? As he's not referenced in the article, I was going to move the book into a further reading section, but in the capacity it seems a bit spurious as its main subject isn't Chinese armies. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon's here?????Teeninvestor (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not any more. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

pray tell gun powder ma

if westerners were so advanced, why were western powers like the netherlands and russian humiliated and defeated at the hands of chinese armies during the Siege of Fort Zeelandia and Russian–Manchu border conflicts?

Is it because your "superior" western military technology failed to rub off? Дунгане (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a point about the article or are you just trolling? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have a point, the Chinese forces used cannons and ships to beat the westerners at the two wars i just mentioned, and the fact that they defeated them proves that Gun powder ma's premise of his precious western people being superior gets blown to pieces.

Oh yeah, and Gun powder's ma precious Tibet was defeated handily by the allegedly "inferior" Chinese army in the Sino-Tibetan War.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you are trolling. Thanks for clearing that up. You mentioned nothing about cannons or ships in your initial comment. You're also the first person to mention Tibet. Why did you? And funnily enough I don't see Gun Powder Ma asserting that Western people are superior to the Chinese. If that's what you read into his posts, I suggest you're being rather paranoid. If you have nothing to add to the article, go and find something constructive to do. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане, don't try to confirm the stereotype that Misplaced Pages is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with this claim?

I would like to hear your opinion on whether the following claim below (in bold) should be kept or removed from the article. Its author is User:Teeninvestor, the main contributor to the article, who is currently the object of a RFC/U and has been long defending the quote with teeth and claws:

The military history of China stretches from roughly 2200 BCE to the present day. Chinese armies were advanced and powerful, especially after the Warring States Period. According to historian Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia".

In my view, this is blatant case of a sweeping WP:Exceptional and WP:Undue, irrespective of whether the Temple ref complies to WP:Reliable or not. Temple claims no less than to know that the Chinese possessed for 20 centuries a superior military technology than – brief selection – Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Indians, Romans, Arabs, Franks, Mongols, Spanish, Ottomans, Persians, English, French, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, ect. etc., no matter what defenses these people came up with in their time. Is this believable?

Note I am not having anything against appraisals of limited scope such as that the US today possesses the most advanced army, or the British had long the most powerful navy in the world. These are mostly accepted views, susceptible to a fair degree of validation. But the scope of Temple's boastful claim is beyond good and evil, utterly unprovable, and – like similar claims of Teeinvestor elsewhere – should thus be completely dropped from here. So, keep or remove? Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So we're not allowed to present the opinions of professional historians who have worked for decades on this topic? Looks like someone didn't read wikipedia policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about WP:Cherry. What if I add other author's conflicting views that any one of these peoples, or a number of them, possessed the most advanced military of their time? Or another one's – equally sweeping – view that China's military technology was long stagnant. How would this relate to Temple's claim? One swallow does not make a summer, and what Temple claimed is in fact unprovable and historically outright absurd. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple only happens to be describing the work of the The leading expert and most prolific China scholar in history. That has no credibility whatsoever, right?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm down guys, it's only a single sentence. Now, does Temple go on to say why the Chinese military was "unmatched"? That's a sweeping assertion, and although I suspect it is mostly true, I'd be willing to bet that at least one nation came up with a weapon or tactic that was better than the Chinese at some point in those two thousand years. The Mamluks of Egypt were able to use their superior tactics to defeat the Mongols in 1260(?), for instance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple refers to military technology only, I believe. I certainly agree with you that the dispute is all out of proportion to its seriousness, but User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of POV-pushing in Asia-related articles that has gotten him blocked repeatedly.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles