Rome vs Han China

zraver · Nov 17, 2006

Sorry but the Mongols didn't really use heavy cavalry

sorry but...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I also have enough of your "super armor". The segmented armor used by the Romans were definitely vulnerable to arrow point, while chain and mail armor were more resistant. The Romans started using chain and mail armor among officers like Centurions, but could never afford using them on the rest of the infantry. Ultimately post Roman periodd, the chain and mail armor became predominant.

The lorica Segmentata was overlaping metal bands so that blows were deflected downward. Now why would they segment thier armor so present a weakness to the very tactics they themselves used (the upward thrust), to defeat arrowsand missiles, this is why roman helmets also had a brim to cover the neck and brow.

The Lorica segmentata is superior to mail vs misisles. mail is primarily designed dot resist slashing attacks. Although it would afford superior protection vs han bolts comapred to leather.

12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.

no it will be either a widely dispesed storm or 12 volleys. Archers can keep up a rate of fire that is a true storm. crossbows cannot.

And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat?

Compared ot the Romans they were school children. They used lighter weapons, lighter armor, did not use large sheilds, mixed weapondry, relied on conscripts, and did not march in step vs Volunteers with years of training and service, scientifically desinged armor, weapons, and tactics so that allthree complemented the other into a leathal killing machine, led by men they trusted not just feared. it's not even a contest in hand to hand

The Han isn't jsut wearing leather, but scalar armor consisting of metal plates (see above) with leather underneath. So in effect, their armor is two layered. In addition to that, they wore trousers, which kept them warm and yet mobile. When it comes to one on one fighting, the advantages fall to the Han because they carry less weight and are generally more comfortable with what they wear, while having a metallurgical advantage.

You might want to try on a kilt and some lorica segmentata and then put on some trousers and don some studded leather armor. The Roman armor is not heavier and the rang eof movement in a kilt is greater than trousers. You ar eprojjecting your own clothing tastes into the argument. The Roman soldier was every bit as comftrable in a kilt as a Han soldie rin his trousers, And the Legion did not have to break ranks to take a leak either.

and the metallugical advantage is not material. No armor used by the Han could stop Gladius's thrust so it was perfectly capable of doing it's job.

The Romans could probably deal with an army that have one of these innovations alone. Maybe the composite recurve bow. Or maybe just a crossbow army alone. Or maybe deal an infantry force with better metallurgy. But not something when alll these elements are put together, into a very single minded and determined force that is every bit as equal of your discipline and professionalism, and are backed by a sophisticated understanding of both tactics and strategy. And to top it all, the Han were also numerically superior (thought not against the Huns though).

The Han likewise never faced an army so finely tuned and trained as the Romans. besides the best infantry and infantry tactics, they had engieers, the best ability to fortify or lay seige, ballsita, onegars, slingers, recurve horn bow archers, light and heavy cavalry, ohh wait thats a total force damn....

If the two sides met in the middle the numbers would be roughly the same.

You keep thinking beucase of a few Han advantages in variosu feild they were superior. This is mistaken, the Romans were every bit as advanced if in different areas. The Han were inovators, the Roman's were engieers.

Rome took over large parts of 3 continents against mutiple empires who in turn had time to try and develop anti-Roman tactics and all failed to find a solution for the legions. Rome did not lose her edge until she lost her Italian borne legionaires, even Attilla was beaten by the Romans.

For every advantage the han enjoy the Romans have one of thier own and vice versa.

crobato · Nov 17, 2006

zraver said:
Sorry but the Mongols didn't really use heavy cavalry

sorry but...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I also have enough of your "super armor". The segmented armor used by the Romans were definitely vulnerable to arrow point, while chain and mail armor were more resistant. The Romans started using chain and mail armor among officers like Centurions, but could never afford using them on the rest of the infantry. Ultimately post Roman periodd, the chain and mail armor became predominant.

The lorica Segmentata was overlaping metal bands so that blows were deflected downward. Now why would they segment thier armor so present a weakness to the very tactics they themselves used (the upward thrust), to defeat arrowsand missiles, this is why roman helmets also had a brim to cover the neck and brow.

The Lorica segmentata is superior to mail vs misisles. mail is primarily designed dot resist slashing attacks. Although it would afford superior protection vs han bolts comapred to leather.

Did you hear what I said?

I don't see why the segmented armor is any better than mail armor. The testamant of history is against this. Once arrows became more lethal, the switch was towards mail or chain armor.

Even the Centurions and higher officers preferred to use the chain and mail armor.

And once again, let me tell you that the Han armor is two fold---a metal scalar armor on top of leather armor. Since you're tank guy you know that laminar techniques---an armor of two or more different substances---catches projectiles better than a single brittle piece of armor.

12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.

no it will be either a widely dispesed storm or 12 volleys. Archers can keep up a rate of fire that is a true storm. crossbows cannot.

And once again, I keep telling you, crossbows are shot in a ranked style. You cannot use an arrow storm with a crossbow because the bow and arrow is more conducive to an arced flight. The crossbow is intended as a direct fire weapon like a gun. That's why it has very strong penetration.

And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat?

Compared ot the Romans they were school children. They used lighter weapons, lighter armor, did not use large sheilds, mixed weapondry, relied on conscripts, and did not march in step vs Volunteers with years of training and service, scientifically desinged armor, weapons, and tactics so that allthree complemented the other into a leathal killing machine, led by men they trusted not just feared. it's not even a contest in hand to hand

The Romans also relied on conscripts, and relied more and more of it as time goes by.

Don't make me laugh. Like I said the Han, based on the Qin, used a professional army model, and its the same kind of heavily regimented model that enabled the Qin to unify China.

You might want to try on a kilt and some lorica segmentata and then put on some trousers and don some studded leather armor.

Do you know what scalar armor is? We're talking of plates formed into scales. This kind of armor happens to be more resistive to arrow points and slashing attacks. The leather underneath not only provides a second layer of protection, but it also serves to cushion the blow against the primary outer layer. This kind of armor does not break inward against a blow which will injure the user, unlike segmented or plate armor.

The Roman armor is not heavier and the rang eof movement in a kilt is greater than trousers. You ar eprojjecting your own clothing tastes into the argument. The Roman soldier was every bit as comftrable in a kilt as a Han soldie rin his trousers, And the Legion did not have to break ranks to take a leak either.

Really I doubt that. The armor is obviously heavier and less flexible. You can't protect your legs from the cold as easily as trousers would. When riding, the legs have to come in friction against the horseback, which you don't get when you wear trousers.

If this is so good why don't other countries after this use it?

and the metallugical advantage is not material. No armor used by the Han could stop Gladius's thrust so it was perfectly capable of doing it's job.

And no wooden shield or wrought iron sword can deal with sharp steel swords either.

When you have an iron age civilization fight a steel civilization, you can guess who might lose, just as bronze cultures lose to iron cultures.

The Han likewise never faced an army so finely tuned and trained as the Romans. besides the best infantry and infantry tactics, they had engieers, the best ability to fortify or lay seige, ballsita, onegars, slingers, recurve horn bow archers, light and heavy cavalry, ohh wait thats a total force damn....

If the two sides met in the middle the numbers would be roughly the same.

Likewise, but then the Romans never faced the Huns in their full might either. Just a small fragment of them, and it still gave the Romans big trouble.

You keep thinking beucase of a few Han advantages in variosu feild they were superior.

Few?

They got crossbows with precision brass triggers, composite recurved bows, they got cast iron, they got folded steel, they got forged steel, they got blast furnaces, they got a numerically larger population, a superior agriculture base. These are the people who were the first to codify warfare into a treatise.

This is mistaken, the Romans were every bit as advanced if in different areas. The Han were inovators, the Roman's were engieers.

And you don't think the Great Wall and the Grand Canal engineering? These are as great, or greater achievements than what the Romans have done.

Rome took over large parts of 3 continents against mutiple empires who in turn had time to try and develop anti-Roman tactics and all failed to find a solution for the legions. Rome did not lose her edge until she lost her Italian borne legionaires, even Attilla was beaten by the Romans.

I hardly consider what the Romans gathered as large parts of any continent.

Attilla is just a minor Hun chieftain, compared to what the Han faced.

crobato · Nov 17, 2006

zraver said:
Sorry but the Mongols didn't really use heavy cavalry

sorry but...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You're looking at armor and clothing that is very similar from what the Han was using, including trousers, leather armor with scalar plates. That does not qualify as heavy cavalry to me.

I also have enough of your "super armor". The segmented armor used by the Romans were definitely vulnerable to arrow point, while chain and mail armor were more resistant. The Romans started using chain and mail armor among officers like Centurions, but could never afford using them on the rest of the infantry. Ultimately post Roman periodd, the chain and mail armor became predominant.[/B]

The lorica Segmentata was overlaping metal bands so that blows were deflected downward. Now why would they segment thier armor so present a weakness to the very tactics they themselves used (the upward thrust), to defeat arrowsand missiles, this is why roman helmets also had a brim to cover the neck and brow.

The Lorica segmentata is superior to mail vs misisles. mail is primarily designed dot resist slashing attacks. Although it would afford superior protection vs han bolts comapred to leather.

Click to expand...

Did you hear what I said?

I don't see why the segmented armor is any better than mail armor. The testamant of history is against this. Once arrows became more lethal, the switch was towards mail or chain armor.

Even the Centurions and higher officers preferred to use the chain and mail armor.

And once again, let me tell you that the Han armor is two fold---a metal scalar armor on top of leather armor. Since you're tank guy you know that laminar techniques---an armor of two or more different substances---catches projectiles better than a single brittle piece of armor. Flexibility is what you need to stop arrow points, which is the keypoint in chain mail, which is the evolution of scalar armor. Both Europeans and the Chinese reached the same principles by sheer observation from two opposite ends of the world.

12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.

no it will be either a widely dispesed storm or 12 volleys. Archers can keep up a rate of fire that is a true storm. crossbows cannot.

Click to expand...

And once again, I keep telling you, crossbows are shot in a ranked style. You cannot use an arrow storm with a crossbow because the bow and arrow is more conducive to an arced flight. The crossbow is intended as a direct fire weapon like a gun. That's why it has very strong penetration.

And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat?

Compared ot the Romans they were school children. They used lighter weapons, lighter armor, did not use large sheilds, mixed weapondry, relied on conscripts, and did not march in step vs Volunteers with years of training and service, scientifically desinged armor, weapons, and tactics so that allthree complemented the other into a leathal killing machine, led by men they trusted not just feared. it's not even a contest in hand to hand

Click to expand...

The Romans also relied on conscripts, and relied more and more of it as time goes by.

Like I said the Han, based on the Qin, used a professional army model, and its the same kind of heavily regimented model that enabled the Qin to unify China. They do use shields, they use a lot of mixed weapons, and most especially, these weapons are based on a superior metal than what the Romans had.

You might want to try on a kilt and some lorica segmentata and then put on some trousers and don some studded leather armor.

Click to expand...

Do you know what scalar armor is? We're talking of plates formed into scales. This kind of armor happens to be more resistive to arrow points and slashing attacks. The leather underneath not only provides a second layer of protection, but it also serves to cushion the blow against the primary outer layer. This kind of armor does not break inward against a blow which will injure the user, unlike segmented or plate armor.

The Roman armor is not heavier and the rang eof movement in a kilt is greater than trousers. You ar eprojjecting your own clothing tastes into the argument. The Roman soldier was every bit as comftrable in a kilt as a Han soldie rin his trousers, And the Legion did not have to break ranks to take a leak either.

Click to expand...

Really I doubt that. The armor is obviously heavier and less flexible. You can't protect your legs from the cold as easily as trousers would. When riding, the legs have to come in friction against the horseback, which you don't get when you wear trousers.

If this is so good why don't other countries after this use it?

and the metallugical advantage is not material. No armor used by the Han could stop Gladius's thrust so it was perfectly capable of doing it's job.

Click to expand...

And no wooden shield or wrought iron sword can deal with sharp steel swords either.

When you have an iron age civilization fight a steel civilization, you can guess who might lose, just as bronze cultures lose to iron cultures.

The Han likewise never faced an army so finely tuned and trained as the Romans. besides the best infantry and infantry tactics, they had engieers, the best ability to fortify or lay seige, ballsita, onegars, slingers, recurve horn bow archers, light and heavy cavalry, ohh wait thats a total force damn....

If the two sides met in the middle the numbers would be roughly the same.

Click to expand...

Likewise, but then the Romans never faced the Huns in their full might either. Just a small fragment of them, and it still gave the Romans big trouble.

You keep thinking beucase of a few Han advantages in variosu feild they were superior.

Click to expand...

Few?

They got crossbows with precision brass triggers, composite recurved bows, they got cast iron, they got folded steel, they got forged steel, they got blast furnaces, they got a numerically larger population, a superior agriculture base. These are the people who were the first to codify warfare into a treatise.

You got technological, numerical and even doctrinal superiority, while the troops are every bit as disciplined and professional. What advantages the Romans have exactly?

This is mistaken, the Romans were every bit as advanced if in different areas. The Han were inovators, the Roman's were engieers.

Click to expand...

And you don't think the Great Wall and the Grand Canal engineering? These are as great, or greater achievements than what the Romans have done.

Rome took over large parts of 3 continents against mutiple empires who in turn had time to try and develop anti-Roman tactics and all failed to find a solution for the legions. Rome did not lose her edge until she lost her Italian borne legionaires, even Attilla was beaten by the Romans.

Click to expand...

I hardly consider what the Romans gathered as large parts of any continent.

Attilla is just a minor Hun chieftain, compared to what the Han faced.

Click to expand...

zraver · Nov 17, 2006

Did you hear what I said?

I don't see why the segmented armor is any better than mail armor. The testamant of history is against this. Once arrows became more lethal, the switch was towards mail or chain armor.

Lorica segmentata is flexible plate the protection it ofered was superior to mail I do not know where you got the idea that mail was superior. Lorica Segmentata was abandoned for reasons of cost after the 3rd century AD's ruinious wars. Slaves could make mail cheaply while the segmented armor required crastmen. Also late Imperial period romans also had scale.

And once again, let me tell you that the Han armor is two fold---a metal scalar armor on top of leather armor. Since you're tank guy you know that laminar techniques---an armor of two or more different substances---catches projectiles better than a single brittle piece of armor. Flexibility is what you need to stop arrow points, which is the keypoint in chain mail, which is the evolution of scalar armor.

Crobato do some basic reasearch please. Chain or mail is useless agaisnt arrows. That is why europeans added plate and eastern forces added scale and silk undershirts.

And once again, I keep telling you, crossbows are shot in a ranked style. You cannot use an arrow storm with a crossbow because the bow and arrow is more conducive to an arced flight. The crossbow is intended as a direct fire weapon like a gun. That's why it has very strong penetration.

Then the effective rang eis only 150M which the legions can cross very quickly. And your firing your bolts directly into the strongest shields of the ancient world

The Romans also relied on conscripts, and relied more and more of it as time goes by.

No legioniare of the high Imperial period was ever a conscript. They were 100% volunteers.

Really I doubt that. The armor is obviously heavier and less flexible. You can't protect your legs from the cold as easily as trousers would. When riding, the legs have to come in friction against the horseback, which you don't get when you wear trousers.

A- try some on find an SCA event there should be both types there

B- The Kilt was used by the Romans, Greeks and Celts, also ever heard of saddle blankets? Alexander the Great, Rode across Asia in a Kilt

And no wooden shield or wrought iron sword can deal with sharp steel swords either.

You wont have the chance to deliver those splitting blows (never mind that a light 2lb short sword is not an axe). The legion wa sset up to force combat where your range of motion do to the press of bodies was short stabbign motions.

When you have an iron age civilization fight a steel civilization, you can guess who might lose, just as bronze cultures lose to iron cultures.

once expsoed to steel Rome would ahve figure it out easily enough. They were very good engieers and mathmaticians.

BLUEJACKET · Nov 17, 2006

Even though Rome hadn't been utterly defeated by the Parthians, it hadn't defeated them completely either.

In 53 BCE, the Roman general Crassus invaded Parthia, but was defeated at the Battle of Carrhae by a Parthian commander called Surena in the Greek and Latin sources, most likely a member of the Suren-Pahlav Clan. This was the beginning of a series of wars that were to last for almost three centuries.

The Parthian armies included two types of cavalry: the heavily-armed and armoured cataphracts and lightly armed but highly-mobile mounted archers. For the Romans, who relied on heavy infantry, the Parthians were too hard to defeat, as both types of cavalry were much faster and more mobile than foot soldiers. On the other hand, the Parthians found it difficult to occupy conquered areas as they were unskilled in siege warfare. Because of these weaknesses, neither the Romans nor the Parthians were able to completely defeat each other.

In the years following the battle of Carrhae the Romans were divided in civil war between the adherents of Pompey and those of Julius Caesar and hence unable to campaign against Parthia. Although Caesar was eventually victorious against Pompey and was planning a campaign against Parthia, his subsequent murder led to another civil war. The Roman general Quintus Labienus, who had supported Caesar's murderers and feared reprisals from his heirs, Mark Antony and Octavian (later Augustus), sided with the Parthians and eventually became the best general of king Pacorus I. In 41 BCE Parthia, led by Labienus, invaded Syria, Cilicia, and Caria and attacked Phrygia in Asia Minor. A second army intervened in Judaea and captured its king Hyrcanus II. The spoils were immense, and put to good use: King Phraates IV invested them in building up Ctesiphon.

In 39 BCE, Antony retaliated, sending out the old warhorse general Publius Ventidius Bassus and several of Caesar's crack, veteran legions to secure the conquered territories. Pacorus and Labienus were killed in action, and the Euphrates again became the border between the two nations. Hoping to avenge the death of Crassus, Antony invaded Mesopotamia in 36 BCE with the Legion VI Ferrata and other units. He had cavalry with him, but it turned out to be unreliable, and the Romans were happy simply to reach Armenia, having suffered great losses against the Parthians.

Antony's campaign was followed by a break in the fighting between the two empires as Rome was again embroiled in civil war. When Octavian defeated Mark Antony, he ignored the Parthians, being more interested in the west. His son-in-law and future successor Tiberius negotiated a peace treaty with Phraates (20 BCE).

War broke out again between Rome and Parthia in the 60s CE. Armenia had become a Roman vassal kingdom, but the Parthian king Vologases I appointed a new Armenian ruler. This was too much for the Romans, and their commander Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo invaded Armenia. The result was that the Armenian king received his crown again in Rome from the emperor Nero. A compromise was worked out between the two empires: in the future, the king of Armenia was to be a Parthian prince, but his appointment required approval from the Romans.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It seems that we missed some important points:
1. The Alexander's army marched into the Central Asian steppes, had few scirmishes/battles with the Scythians and then those nomads just scattered into the endless steppes & started guerilla war!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. Had the Romans & Han ever met in Central Asia (where else?), the result would have been very similar. In the end, the Romans who survived that war would have probably revolted against their commanders, desert their army, and marry local women!

crobato · Nov 17, 2006

zraver said:
Did you hear what I said?

I don't see why the segmented armor is any better than mail armor. The testamant of history is against this. Once arrows became more lethal, the switch was towards mail or chain armor.

Lorica segmentata is flexible plate the protection it ofered was superior to mail I do not know where you got the idea that mail was superior. Lorica Segmentata was abandoned for reasons of cost after the 3rd century AD's ruinious wars. Slaves could make mail cheaply while the segmented armor required crastmen. Also late Imperial period romans also had scale.

Did you hear what I said? Roman officers preferred wearing the chain and mail armor, not the segmented armor.

Crobato do some basic reasearch please. Chain or mail is useless agaisnt arrows. That is why europeans added plate and eastern forces added scale and silk undershirts.

They are quite effective against the bows and arrows of that time, beacuse of the way chain can catch arrowheads. The Huns and Mongols for example, are said to prefer wearing silk because of its ability to catch arrows. Chain and mail armor hits their limits when the Mongols turned things around with their style of recurved composite bows.

Here is something about scalar armor. The modern bullet proof vest works on the same principle.

Then the effective rang eis only 150M which the legions can cross very quickly. And your firing your bolts directly into the strongest shields of the ancient world.

Except now that the formation is firing again, and again like musket formation. And your wooden shields are up against metal bolts with the equivalent kinetic energy of a modern 9mm bullet.

The Romans also relied on conscripts, and relied more and more of it as time goes by.

No legioniare of the high Imperial period was ever a conscript. They were 100% volunteers.

You know that's not true. And even then, they were not winning all their battles either.

Really I doubt that. The armor is obviously heavier and less flexible. You can't protect your legs from the cold as easily as trousers would. When riding, the legs have to come in friction against the horseback, which you don't get when you wear trousers.

A- try some on find an SCA event there should be both types there

B- The Kilt was used by the Romans, Greeks and Celts, also ever heard of saddle blankets? Alexander the Great, Rode across Asia in a Kilt

Alexander would have preferred trousers if he had worn one. Trousers was a necessary invention by horseback nomadic peoples.

I don't think modern day cowboys would want to wear kilts either.

And no wooden shield or wrought iron sword can deal with sharp steel swords either.

You wont have the chance to deliver those splitting blows (never mind that a light 2lb short sword is not an axe). The legion wa sset up to force combat where your range of motion do to the press of bodies was short stabbign motions.

Conditional. Not all combat takes place in close quarters and not all Han swords are jians. Have you heard of the Dao? The heavy sword with the single edge?

When you have an iron age civilization fight a steel civilization, you can guess who might lose, just as bronze cultures lose to iron cultures.

once expsoed to steel Rome would ahve figure it out easily enough.

Oh really. It took 1845 AD for an American named Bessemer to bring 4 Chinese blacksmiths into America to finally discover the differential process.

They were very good engieers and mathmaticians.

And the Chinese knew the concept of zero as a number, not to mention the value of pie.

crobato · Nov 18, 2006

2. Had the Romans & Han ever met in Central Asia (where else?), the result would have been very similar. In the end, the Romans would have probably revolted against their commanders, desert their army, and marry local women!

One of the reasons said to have been for the Romans to have invaded Parthia was they getting fed up being ripped off by the Parthians who were selling bolts of silk to them. And the Romans were simply addicted to silk like some crazed fashion. The Parthians and other kingdoms along the route took great pains to prevent the Romans who their actual source of silk was. The Romans only knew and heard stories of a great kingdom in the East where this silk was coming from, and they called this kingdom, Serenica.

Likewise, the Parthians took great pains to prevent the Han from knowing who they actually selling the silk as end users, the people the Han themselves would call as Da Qui.

zraver · Nov 18, 2006

Mother of all suprises the Romans had steel in three different types, but declined to mass produce it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

faced witha steel using enemy that would have changed.

Did you hear what I said? Roman officers preferred wearing the chain and mail armor, not the segmented armor.

but thier preferance does not change the protective value of the armor. and solid plates designed to deflect are superior to chain

Except now that the formation is firing again, and again like musket formation. And your wooden shields are up against metal bolts with the equivalent kinetic energy of a modern 9mm bullet.

1- each man will fire once maybe twice for the frst couple of ranks before the legion closes, same volume of fire.

2- the broad three bladed design would induce massive friction when passing through the laminated wood (if it didnt just impale and stick) and lack the power to pierce the armor. It's cross section is too big to defeat heavy armors, it was desinged to defeat leather not metal.

Here is something about scalar armor. The modern bullet proof vest works on the same principle.

Huh? No, modern BA uses a weave that stresses and catches the bullet via passive resistence.

You know that's not true. And even then, they were not winning all their battles either.

conscription ended just beofre the end of the republican era. If you think I am wrong show me a source.

Alexander would have preferred trousers if he had worn one. Trousers was a necessary invention by horseback nomadic peoples.

1- The mainland European Celts had trousers before the time of Rome
2- The native Americans a nomadic horse people with exposure to trousers preffered breechclouts.

Conditional. Not all combat takes place in close quarters and not all Han swords are jians. Have you heard of the Dao? The heavy sword with the single edge?

No it's not, if the Legions impact your lines, your fighting thier battle, and the dao like the celtic longsword would have been a huge liability for it's lack of close quarters mobility.

Oh really. It took 1845 AD for an American named Bessemer to bring 4 Chinese blacksmiths into America to finally discover the differential process.

Huh WTF

1- Bessimer was english
2- He bought the patent for air blowing (a method of steel production known as the pneumatic process of steelmaking) from an American William Kelly and combined it with his own similar acid based decarbinisation process.
3- find any acredited evidence to back your claim up

And the Chinese knew the concept of zero as a number, not to mention the value of pie.

is there an invention you wont steal form anothe rculture for Chinese pride

zero

The Babylonians were known to have used a space as a placeholder for empty "columns" as far back as 1700 BC.

The first records we have of the symbol we use for 0, is from Hindu writings from the late 9th century.

Pi

Known also as the "golden mean" or "golden rule" was an invention of ancient Egypt and is found repeatedly in their buildings, it wa salter copied by the Greeks.

Seripusly man, discussion require honesty and truthfulness. Stealing other cultures inventions to inflate your side of the argument is dishonest

silverster · Nov 18, 2006

zraver said:
Seripusly man, discussion require honesty and truthfulness. Stealing other cultures inventions to inflate your side of the argument is dishonest

Can you blame him?

Thats exactly what he was told if the person was educated in china. Their schools...

zraver · Nov 18, 2006

Unless I ge ttold that by some one who is in China I won't beeive it. I can understand the anti-Ameicna propaganda but not stolen history. China is one of he richest cultures in the world who added so much to the human experiance there is no need to steal from other cultures.

I think he just failed to do his research and was running on rumors

Rome vs Han China

zraver

Junior Member

crobato

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

zraver

Junior Member

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot

crobato

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

zraver

Junior Member

silverster

New Member

zraver

Junior Member