Roman Empire vs Han Empire

[Fattyacids]

LOL, read it again, little misconstruer of facts



Mongol invasion of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One victory eh?

Dumbo, Genghis khan failed to take China, his grandson did, he looted but no large scale massacre like in ME and europe.

BA degree from wiki isn't going to cut it, go read a proper history book.

 

[Audio]

Dumbo, Genghis khan failed to take China, his grandson did, he looted but no large scale massacre like in ME and europe.

Only you are the dumbo here, trying desperately now to cling to straws after all your arguments were put in the gutter where they belong. So sad.

Point remains, one of them sacked Beijing, the other took whole of China. One victory eh?

 

[Fattyacids]

Only you are the dumbo here, trying desperately now to cling to straws after all your arguments were put in the gutter where they belong. So sad.

Point remains, one of them sacked Beijing, the other took whole of China. One victory eh?

Fact 1: After my rebuttal in post 283, all you did was making empty comment.

Fact 2: Beijing was just a city bk then. Looting a city =/= winning a war or taking a country.

Dumb gets dumber, lol.

 

[Audio]

Fact 1: After my rebuttal in post 283, all you did was making empty comment.

Fact 2: Beijing was just a city bk then. Looting a city =/= winning a war or taking a country.

Dumb gets dumber, lol.

What rebuttal? You operate with lies and misrepresentation. That's no rebuttal. Furthermore, i made a reply to those lies in post #284.

Beijing was a capital, the debate was whether or not capital was sacked or not? And let's not forget how you lied about "one Mongol victory, then they were totally annihilated and didn't present no threat". Who gives you this? You're clutching to straws and trying to look smart by labeling me dumb, when any half worth objective reader can judge for himself.

You are not smart enough for this debate...let it go. You're already getting tangled in all sorts of BS, don't think i don't notice, i'm just being soft on you.

 

[Grand Historian]

Making empty comment is proof that you've lost the argument.

He can't read Chinese yet he pretends he's knowledgeable about history ie using statistics that wikipedia had to remove for bias.

When confronted about this he blames me for not providing a link to the papers.(They are pay to view and no amount of translating programs is going to circumvent that barrier).

Its quite obvious when a fraud has an ax to grind ie constantly bringing up Mao,Mongols,Sinocentrism and wiki articles with no pertinence to the Han or Roman empires.

 

[Fattyacids]

What rebuttal? You operate with lies and misrepresentation. That's no rebuttal. Furthermore, i made a reply to those lies in post #284.

Beijing was a capital, the debate was whether or not capital was sacked or not? And let's not forget how you lied about "one Mongol victory, then they were totally annihilated and didn't present no threat". Who gives you this? You're clutching to straws and trying to look smart by labeling me dumb, when any half worth objective reader can judge for himself.

You are not smart enough for this debate...let it go. You're already getting tangled in all sorts of BS, don't think i don't notice, i'm just being soft on you.

Post 284? After I rebutted your one-liner post, you went back and added more words

Let me educate you, Beijing wasn't the capital when Genghis Khan looted. Mongol broke into fractions after driven out of China. Bet Wikipedia didn't tell you all that. Feeling stupid now?

Who lied and misrepresented? Let's do a recap,

1) You said Genghis Khan took China. I corrected you, he didn't. His grandson did.

2) You then equate looting of a city with taking over a country. I taught you the difference.

3) In your last straw, you argued Beijing was the capital city. I took you to school again!

Look, you have ZERO credibility whatsoever! You have no knowledge on the subject. Don't embarrass yourself further.

 

[Grand Historian]

LMAO, what was removed for bias? Who are you to talk about pertinence anyway , using shoddy figures from an anonymous internet forum infested with 50 cent circle jerking? Pretending to be some sort of historian.

I'm sure you can find evidence in support of your claims on some other site than pay per view. Just like i did.

The wikiveristy link was removed from wikipedia due to lack of original research,not maintaining a neutral point of view etc.

Sigh,you are truly too ignorant to comprehend the flawed values ie dates to Han Wudi,50 iron offices,1 furnace per office etc.

Wagner even mentions that there were multiple ironsites per commandery ie so the number of iron offices recorded in the Hanshu do not reflect reality.


From 漢代大鐵官管理職官的再研究,Li Jinghua using inscriptions of Han era iron objects has found that larger iron offices ie Hedong had multiple sites(Zuofang作坊).



Li Jinghua has shown that some Zuofang have further divisions. ie The Zuofang of Shanyang II has 2 subsidiary Zuofang sites. Keep in mind Shanyang commandery only has two large Zuofang sites ie Shanyang I and Shanyang II while the largest sites such as Hedong commandery has 4 large Zuofang sites ie Dong I,Dong II,Dong III and Dong IV.


This is far from the exception,while the inscriptions show that Nanyang commandery consists Yang I and Yang II Zuofang sites though in reality there's as many as eight separate Zuofang sites. With Yang I definitely having subsidiary divisions while Yang II is murkier. Li Jinghua comes to the conclusion that the Nanyang and Hanzhong commanderies has the highest sites of the various commanderies.


Using the previous examples Li Jinghua also notes that the extremely large iron offices that contain 3 or 4 Zuofang sites should actually have 5 or 6 Zuofang sites.

 

[applesauce]

How much power do you have? After all chinese people have zero influence on politics of their country. Its not a democracy and even local participation isn´t allowed. Since the chinese leadership acts capitalistic i assume that western managers hold far more power than any normal chinese citizen...inside china.

the chinese leadership is actually very concerned about public opinion, the public is the primary driver behind things like the increasing attention towards the environment and changing laws to fit more modern times, sure normally an individual doesn't have much say, but how much say does a normal individual have in the US? oor italy? or britain? it usually the group opinion that counts, and thats usually a good thing. and you're delusional to the extreme if you think the CCP cares more for the western managers over the opinion of the public, those managers are only good so far as they bring jobs and tech to the PRC, hence all those required joint projects(must partner with domestic company if you wanna do business in china) in areas such as cars and entertainment and much more.

your sewer system looks pretty laughable and weak. Want see a roman water system?

Here from Pompeji:
As you can see its not just cones stuck together like yours. Its metal pipes like we use today melted together:

ah yes "cones stuck together" a method so inefficient, so ancient, so old and outdated that backwards countries such as
the US

Britain

canada

all use these "cones stuck together"

oh yea, did i mention the romans used it too?

now that we've established that you know absolutely nothing on the subject, china, at various times had the biggest cities in the world, it plumming system was just fine comparable to any other large cities of its time.

And sorry about the systems you showed...nothing of this looks impressive for me. But lets compare cities....show me something in China that could be even remotely seen as elegant and colossal as Rome:

When i compare rome...with your imperial city...

I mean...is this serious? Some wood huts?

you're now using your own tastes in architectural style as a benchmark for "elegance" as though impressing you was the sole criteria for how advance or developed a group of people are, furthermore you are looking down on a universally acclaimed landmark that is a prime example of a magnificent eastern architectural work, one couldn't be more ethnocentric if they tried. referring to the forbidden city as "Some wood huts" is the same as referring to the colosseum as "some old stage in europe".

 

[dexter]

Sorry for being off-topic but this thread is reminding me of the game ROME: TOTAL WAR

 

[Brainsucker]

This is a weak argument. In between China was raped numerous times, but due to the power of it's culture, the rapists managed to identify with it (similarly to what happened to Egyptians, their conquerors up to Roman time also took their culture).
On top of this China decided for a civilizational state, while here in the west we decided on a state based on nations.

Similarly weak was 4Gorrillas apesomething comment a few pages earlier, he claims that a guy from ancient times could have easily spoken and read newspaper in modern Beijing. He says it like it's a strong point, in some sense i do agree, but on another level, that's a sign of stagnation for the past millenium.
Stagnation evident from the fact that the people who descended from this Roman empire had to pull you out from the unenviable position (through FDI, tech transfer etc etc) in which you have found yourselves in due to the divine "wisdom" of your emperors of old and the unmatched wisdom of Mao.

As for past glory, Latin is the language of science and medicine, remnants of Roman law are still in use throughout the western world, go see any judicial building and i bet 10€'s it has Roman architectural elements in it (even the modern ones).

It is funny that you make the powerful "Civilizational State as a mere choice. The Chinese Civilizational States, and the culture behind it was a power that the western didn't possessed. That's why, there was no another Roman Empire that rule over all Europe after the fall of Rome.Even Holy Roman Empire wasn't. and Today European Union is a cooperation, not an Empire.

What? so Scientists speak latin? I don't think so.Scientists use latin just to name something, not to talk with other people. Still, China also has Hanzi. A writing that being created from the ancient time and being evolved until now, used by people, not just being used to name something by scientists.

While the Roman Architectural element still being used until now, it's also the same as the Chinese Gunpowder, paper, and other old techs. So what is the different? Even so, as good as those technology, they are being used and developed by other people. So, what is the good of those Roman Architecture if the one who use is the American?

 

[GoGetIt]

Parthian Empire feels so sad：why nobody remembers me!

 

[Audio]

It is funny that you make the powerful "Civilizational State as a mere choice. The Chinese Civilizational States, and the culture behind it was a power that the western didn't possessed. That's why, there was no another Roman Empire that rule over all Europe after the fall of Rome.Even Holy Roman Empire wasn't. and Today European Union is a cooperation, not an Empire.

What? so Scientists speak latin? I don't think so.Scientists use latin just to name something, not to talk with other people. Still, China also has Hanzi. A writing that being created from the ancient time and being evolved until now, used by people, not just being used to name something by scientists.

While the Roman Architectural element still being used until now, it's also the same as the Chinese Gunpowder, paper, and other old techs. So what is the different? Even so, as good as those technology, they are being used and developed by other people. So, what is the good of those Roman Architecture if the one who use is the American?

Can you read to what i was replying to with that post? Or this is selective reading of only my response? Can you quote the bullshit to what i replied to with that and give him a history lesson? Thanks.

T
Sigh,you are truly too ignorant to comprehend the flawed values ie dates to Han Wudi,50 iron offices,1 furnace per office etc.

How am i ignorant?
I catch you peddling anonymous derived data from an anonymous forum from an anonymous user, presenting it as truth? Sorry, if your credibility went out the window with that little stunt you pulled and i require assurances and sources from you for whatever you decide to say.

Wagner even mentions that there were multiple ironsites per commandery ie so the number of iron offices recorded in the Hanshu do not reflect reality.
View attachment 163501

From 漢代大鐵官管理職官的再研究,Li Jinghua using inscriptions of Han era iron objects has found that larger iron offices ie Hedong had multiple sites(Zuofang作坊).
View attachment 163510
View attachment 163511

Li Jinghua has shown that some Zuofang have further divisions. ie The Zuofang of Shanyang II has 2 subsidiary Zuofang sites. Keep in mind Shanyang commandery only has two large Zuofang sites ie Shanyang I and Shanyang II while the largest sites such as Hedong commandery has 4 large Zuofang sites ie Dong I,Dong II,Dong III and Dong IV.
View attachment 163615

This is far from the exception,while the inscriptions show that Nanyang commandery consists Yang I and Yang II Zuofang sites though in reality there's as many as eight separate Zuofang sites. With Yang I definitely having subsidiary divisions while Yang II is murkier. Li Jinghua comes to the conclusion that the Nanyang and Hanzhong commanderies has the highest sites of the various commanderies.
View attachment 163623

Using the previous examples Li Jinghua also notes that the extremely large iron offices that contain 3 or 4 Zuofang sites should actually have 5 or 6 Zuofang sites.
View attachment 163624

Thanks for posting this. Since it isn't what i required for my browser to translate, ie link that opens a page which gets auto translated, i'll require a few days to see what it is you posted. I'll be in touch.

 

[Brainsucker]

Can you read to what i was replying to with that post? Or this is selective reading of only my response? Can you quote the bullshit to what i replied to with that and give him a history lesson? Thanks.

WHAT?
You quoted my previous post. So you said that my previous post was bullshit, then why replied it, and now you don't want me to REPLY your post that replied my "bullshit" previous post? I didn't consider your post as bullshit, but maybe I should now. So I won't reply your 'bullshit' post from now on. Because bullshit post is just waste my time.

 

[Audio]

WHAT?
You quoted my previous post. So you said that my previous post was bullshit, then why replied it, and now you don't want me to REPLY your post that replied my "bullshit" previous post? I didn't consider your post as bullshit, but maybe I should now. So I won't reply your 'bullshit' post from now on. Because bullshit post is just waste my time.

Sorry sorry, i apologize, in all the commotion of this thread i lost track that i directly quoted you. As i can't respond in detail today nor over the weekend, as i'll be busy, i'll reply next week.

 

[Brainsucker]

To be honest, Roman Empire is a past times. Even they were great, but their descendant couldn't rebuilt that what lost after the Empire crumble. But there was a greater Empire that built by other civilization. It was The British Empire. They are even still exist today, and their language is being used by a lot of people. But, British Empire is not Rome, neither do they are their descendant.