Why waning powers meddle in Asian affairs

[Chinese-Dragon]

What you are referring to modern gun (Rim Fire Rifle), and modern artillery which uses Black Powder to propel a projectile, but Artillery as a concept was born in Greek and Roman Era,

OK so maybe the US and Vietnamese Army should go back to the Greek and Roman style weapons? Since China invented modern guns and modern artillery?

 

[jhungary]

OK so maybe the US and Vietnamese Army should go back to the Greek and Roman style weapons? Since China invented modern guns and modern artillery?

Well, you were the one who talk about "INVENTION" of Guns and Artillery.

But no, China did not invent "Modern Weapon" as the one we use, because

1.) Modern Weapon do not use Black Powder anymore.
2.) Black Powder Weapon have a different mechanism than modern Rim Fire Weapon.

But the bottom line is. China invented Gunpowder, they use it to improve the weapon of the era, and making it more effective, that does not mean China invented Gun and Artillery, otherwise the invention of Rifle Grooving (Which give the modern rifle/artillery piece range and accuracy) and Separated Projectile Recoil (Which give the firearms ability to automatic reload) instead of muzzle loading gunpowder weapon also improve weapon efficient into modern standard, if you count gunpowder improvement as an re-invention of guns and artillery, then you also need to put the rifle grooving (which is modern day standard) and gas-expansion recoil as re-invention as well. Otherwise I can also say this

Should PLA go back to fight war with Fire Lance and Black Powder?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well, you were the one who talk about "INVENTION" of Guns and Artillery.

But no, China did not invent "Modern Weapon" as the one we use, because

1.) Modern Weapon do not use Black Powder anymore.
2.) Black Powder Weapon have a different mechanism than modern Rim Fire Weapon.

But the bottom line is. China invented Gunpowder, they use it to improve the weapon of the era, and making it more effective, that does not mean China invented Gun and Artillery, otherwise the invention of Rifle Grooving and Separated Projectile using gas expansion instead of muzzle loading gunpowder weapon also improve weapon efficient into modern standard, if you count gunpowder improvement as an re-invention of guns and artillery, then you also need to put the rifle grooving (which is modern day standard) and gas-expansion recoil as rei-invention as well. Otherwise I can also say this

Should PLA go back to fight war with Fire Lance and Black Powder?

You are playing with semantics.

The first guns/firearms in the world were from China. You can change the definition as much as you like to suit your narrative, it doesn't change this fundamental fact.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The problem is he was incoherent.
Then he tried to defend his incoherence.
Leading to more incoherence.
.

How could I hope to match your standards? Obviously I have to post more and improve considerably. Perhaps a short-cut would be to follow your thousands and thousands of posts, and take them for a model.

 

[jhungary]

You are playing with semantics.

The first guns/firearms in the world were from China. You can change the definition as much as you like to suit your narrative, it doesn't change this fundamental fact.

lol......you argue like a child.

Guns/Firearms exist long before the invention of gun powder, yes, the gun powder greatly improve the efficiency of weaponry but that does not mean the gunpowder invention invented guns and firearms.

The concept of Firearms come from projectile weapon, which exist BEFORE the invention of gunpowder. Ballista is an example of firearms, just because the invention of gunpowder change the propelling method from torsion (Elasticity) to Gas Propellant (Burning Gunpowder) that does not mean you invented Firearms with Gunpowder. You improved firearms range by using gas propellant, but you did not invent that mechanism.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

lol......you argue like a child.

Guns/Firearms exist long before the invention of gun powder, yes, the gun powder greatly improve the efficiency of weaponry but that does not mean the gunpowder invention invented guns and firearms.

The concept of Firearms come from projectile weapon, which exist BEFORE the invention of gunpowder. Ballista is an example of firearms, just because the invention of gunpowder change the propelling method from torsion (Elasticity) to Gas Propellant (Burning Gunpowder) that does not mean you invented Firearms with Gunpowder. You improved firearms range by using gas propellant, but you did not invent that mechanism.

Projectile weapons are not the same as guns/firearms, the first of which appeared in China.

Everyone else is wrong, and you are right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

 

[jhungary]

Projectile weapons are not the same as guns/firearms, the first of which appeared in China.

Everyone else is wrong, and you are right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

How about Oxford Dictionary?

Definition of Gun

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun

A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

Definition of Firearm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/firearm

A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

Now, tell me, is this Greek Fire, invented in 670 AD (230 years prior to Gunpowder), a firearms?

According to Oxford Dictionary, yes.

An Fire arms is a portable gun, and a gun is, according to oxford dictionary, a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, Greek Fire uses sulphur to propel burning arrow/missile/oil toward the enemy, and is portable as shown in the picture, hence according to Oxford Dictionary, GREEK FIRE IS A FIREARM

And yes, Wikipedia can be wrong, so, YOU ARE WRONG IN THIS CASE. Or are you telling me Oxford Dictionary is wrong?

 

[bbccdd1470]

congrats, you and the kimchi expelled japanese invasions multiple times. oh wait. China and Korea combined are how many times bigger than Japan? lame excuse from you for not invading Japan in return. don´t you think it is pathetic? why have you drawn 9-dash line in the south China sea not the east China sea or sea of Japan?

Why the Chinese have to invade Japan in return? What did China gain by invading Japan the "infertile Island"? So by your logic, the strong have to invade the weak to prove their power at any cost. Otherwise that is a pathetic and lame excuse. The fact was China only want the Japanese out of korean peninsula, and not to mention after the war in 1598, Japan had closed their country and stopped meddling the Mainland affairs for about 250 years until the blackship came. Please read more East Asian history, the Japanese sent their best army to conquer Korea because Hideyoshis wanted to become the King of China. Also stop calling Korean name cause this is so disrespectful.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

How about Oxford Dictionary?

Definition of Gun

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun

A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

Definition of Firearm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/firearm

A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

Now, tell me, is this Greek Fire, invented in 670 AD (230 years prior to Gunpowder), a firearms?

View attachment 424228

According to Oxford Dictionary, yes.

An Fire arms is a portable gun, and a gun is, according to oxford dictionary, a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, Greek Fire uses sulphur to propel burning arrow/missile toward the enemy, and is portable as shown in the picture, hence according to Oxford Dictionary, GREEK FIRE IS A FIREARM

And yes, Wikipedia can be wrong, so, YOU ARE WRONG IN THIS CASE. Or are you telling me Oxford Dictionary is wrong?

More semantics.

I'm not interested in this argument, it's a simple fact that guns/firearms originated in China.

You can call ballistas and whatever else you want a gun, if that makes sense to you then fine. If you consider "elastic" force to be the same as "explosive" force.

 

[jhungary]

More semantics.

I'm not interested in this argument, it's a simple fact that guns/firearms originated in China.

You can call ballistas and whatever else you want a gun, if that makes sense to you then fine.

yeah, just because you said so and some Wikipedia article said so and it must be true. And it wasn't me who call cheirosiphōn a firearm, it was both NRA and Oxford Dictionary.

But hey, if you believe that so you can sleep better at night, you are free to believe that.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

yeah, just because you said so and some Wikipedia article said so and it must be true.

But hey, if you believe that so you can sleep better at night, you are free to believe that.

Sure, "elastic force" = "explosive force" right? So ballistas are guns, right?

I'd love to see you find a legitimate source that says the first guns/firearms did not come from China. I'll be waiting here.

 

[jhungary]

Sure, "elastic force" = "explosive force" right? So ballistas are guns, right?

I'd love to see you find a legitimate source that says the first guns/firearms did not come from China. I'll be waiting here.

Did you read my post at all?

cheirosiphōn was propelled by Sulphur and Resin, WAS A FIREARM BEFORE GUNPOWDER.

And yes, elastic force can be explosive, you do know Ballista can propel a projectile at around 1 km range, explosive force does not need to be coming from explosion, even today pistol, explosive force come from burning prima and igniting the propellant, no explosion involved in the process.

You do know what Ballista was used for? They are use to destroy the wall of the defence. You should go study some history, at least play some Age of Empire...

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Did you read my post at all?

cheirosiphōn was propelled by Sulphur and Resin, WAS A FIREARM BEFORE GUNPOWDER.

And yes, elastic force can be explosive, you do know Ballista can propel a projectile at around 1 km range, explosive force does not need to be coming from explosion. You do know what Ballista was used for? They are use to destroy the wall of the defence. You should go study some history, at least play some Age of Empire...

Like I said, I'd like you to find a legitimate source saying that guns/firearms did not originate in China.

I'll be waiting here.

And by the way, that Greek thing did not propel a "bullet or shell" by explosive force like your definition states, it is closer to a flamethrower. Unless you want to change your definition again.

 

[jhungary]

Like I said, I'd like you to find a legitimate source saying that guns/firearms did not originate in China.

I'll be waiting here.

So, oxford dictionary is not a legitimate source? I would say it is a bit more legitimate than Wikipedia, can you show me one legitimate source other than Wikipedia say firearm originate form China??

I'll be waiting here

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So, oxford dictionary is not a legitimate source? I would say it is a bit more legitimate than Wikipedia, can you show me one legitimate source other than Wikipedia say firearm originate form China??

I'll be waiting here

Your Oxford dictionary source agrees with me, since Greek fire does not fire a "bullet or shell" using explosive force, but was more like a flamethrower.

Definition of Gun

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun

A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

(Now are you going to change your definition again?)