149 replies to this topic

[mariusj]

Making the manufacturing capacity of PRC into simply an association with clothes might be a bit meaningless considering that they make a bunch of the things which go on into the process of spawning carriers and jets etc.

Like what?

[mohistManiac]

Like what?

A scientist or some other might be more suited to answer this however. It seems to me that they have the capacity to make cargo ships, electric car batteries and other computerized electronic equipment they could make the combined mechanisms for making jets and carrier systems. I think they design their own jets now. Clothes would be a big part of what they do in terms of the more traditional aspects of manufacturing like making silk thread and fabric but what about the non traditonal like computer chips and stuff like that?

[mariusj]

A scientist or some other might be more suited to answer this however. It seems to me that they have the capacity to make cargo ships, electric car batteries and other computerized electronic equipment they could make the combined mechanisms for making jets and carrier systems. I think they design their own jets now. Clothes would be a big part of what they do in terms of the more traditional aspects of manufacturing like making silk thread and fabric but what about the non traditonal like computer chips and stuff like that?

That is certainly true, BUT the claim was due to Chinese manufacturing ability it would be on par with US military production. Much of Chinese production ability DOES NOT translate into military production buildings. Say for example, some plants in OH are pumping out parts for airlines, well these could be refitted into making military equipments. Plants in China probably could not be refitted to make them.

I am not saying China cannot produce military units, but rather you cannot equate China's production ability and think it is proportional to its military production.

[mohistManiac]

That is certainly true, BUT the claim was due to Chinese manufacturing ability it would be on par with US military production. Much of Chinese production ability DOES NOT translate into military production buildings. Say for example, some plants in OH are pumping out parts for airlines, well these could be refitted into making military equipments. Plants in China probably could not be refitted to make them.

I am not saying China cannot produce military units, but rather you cannot equate China's production ability and think it is proportional to its military production.

Oh I see what you mean now but I wonder how they make their jets then. I haven't exactly stepped inside a jumbo jet making facility to know the details but yea it sounds difficult to make something like a private jet and then go to make a stealth bomber.

[MING-LOYALIST]

Here is my list of the greatest polities in history.

1. USA (Unrivalled power projection, economic prosperity, cultural influence, technological innovation.)

2. Mongol empire (Hate it or love it, Raw military power nothing else.)

3. British Empire (First true stable world empire, annoying as hell for the rest of the world.)

4. Han dynasty and Roman empire (Very similar ancient regional hegemons, both enjoyed brief periods of unrivalled regional dominance)

5. Arab islamic empire (Brief period of military superpowerdom, enduring worldwide cultural influence)

6. Tang dynasty (Foundation of east asian culture, brief period of regional dominatance in eastern asia.)

7. Soviet Union (Great military power and the will to use it, crappy economic system.)

8. Ming dynasty (Brief period of regional dominance and global naval superpower during Yongle's reign)

[mariusj]

Which arab islamic Empire rivaled Tang?

[MING-LOYALIST]

Ummayad caliphate.

Tang dynasty after 670AD did not enjoy military supremacy, it couldn't do much to prevent Bohai, Turks, Nanzhao, Khitan from breaking away, neither could it stop Tibetans from invading its territory.

[mariusj]

Ummayad caliphate.

Tang dynasty after 670AD did not enjoy military supremacy, it couldn't do much to prevent Bohai, Turks, Nanzhao, Khitan from breaking away, neither could it stop Tibetans from invading its territory.

I find that hard to believe.
670 AD is the first year of Xianheng, when Emperor GaoZhong reign.

Edited by mariusj, 14 June 2011 - 09:38 PM.

[MING-LOYALIST]

And thats when Tang started to lose territory in korea, turks started to rebel in mongolia and tibetans started to push Tang out of Qinghai.

670AD is when Tang reached its peak and started to shrink.

[Guaporense]

Guaporense, you also did not read most of the pages here before you commented. I wish you would do more of reading before you start posting, because a lot of what you said was said numerous times already. Some of which are valid, but others are already debunked.

I have read most of the tread. I will reread it now.

Also maybe if a say some ideas that you consider debunked is that maybe I do not agree with the criticism of these ideas, instead of just ignoring them.

For example, Han is NOT the sole power in its region. The steppe empire is as large and as powerful as Han.

Are you talking just about military power here? Well, for one thing, I don't think that we can say that a steppe clan can be considered an real empire. The Xiongu were not really "civilized". Also, they never compared to China in terms of overall power, which is not only military, but also cultural, scientific and economic.

Another, you should read more on the Opium War and whether or not Qin was forced to her knee. Some member's posts specially focused on that.

My point was to refute the assertion that the GDP estimates of Angus Maddison were usefull to understanding the power of states, they weren't. They didn't capture economic power, specially for the early modern era, when the Netherlands have in fact greater economic power than India and China in the 17th century, while beign a much smaller country.

Well, the fact is that Britain at the time was so powerful that they could simply control the trade policy of the Qin. The Qin had lost sovereignty in that war, as Britain ordered what policy on the import of opium they could pursue.

Now, if you say that the Qin was not forced to their knee's them I say that in the internet there are people that say that Germany did not defeat Poland in 1939. (and the fact is that Britain defeated China with less difficulty than Germany had in defeating Poland, due to the huge technological disparity in the earlier case).

While it is true that G.B have territory in every corner of the world, there are still other empires that are so powerful that it changed world history, but its not really the topic of this discussion.

Britain was the first power that could project power to every corner of the planet. Britain was the world's hegemon, the first world hegemon. Other great empires before, such as the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Han Empire, ...., never became world hegemons as their influence didn't cover the entire planet.

Also, the fall of Byzantine was not due to one war with Persia, but to numerous reasons. Also, it was not conquered by the Arabs, but the Turks, who were by no means small bands.

Of course, the fall of the byzantine empire consisted of 900 years of territorial disintegration. But the main cause was the war with Persia in the early 7th century that weakened both empires and lead to the emergence of a new power, the Islamic Caliphate, and this empire conquered about 2/3 of the Byzantine empire. After that the Byzantine Empire was never a real power.

As for Soviet and US, I disagree that US was more powerful. US is the sole dominating power in the world after the collapse for a few decades, but prior to 1989, the USSR is as powerful as the US.

No. The USSR was never as powerful as the USA. In truth the USSR was just a very large third world country with lots of nukes.

The USA had in their sphere of influence Japan and the whole of Western Europe. In 1980, Japan, USA and Western Europe published 90% of the world's scientific articles, the USSR only published 8% of the world's scientific articles. There simply was no comparison, the USA was the world's leader, the USSR was just the part of the world that didn't recognize the USA as the leading power.

The USA was relative to the rest of the world, much more powerful in the 1950's than they are today.

I also disagree on your opinion of Rome. While it is true you can consider from the founding of Rome to fall of Byzantium as a single existence, you cannot do that while counting different Chinese dynasties as distinctive. The Kingdom of Rome, the Republic of Rome, the Empire, the Eastern/Western Empire, the Eastern Empire, not to mention all the numerous dynasties that rules them, are much like the different dynasties that ruled China. It would be hypocritical to say Rome as a single unity lasted 2200 years and disregard the Mandate of Heaven that lasted from QSHD till Pu Yi.

Well, in the case of the Chinese dynasties we had a single Sinitic civilization that was ruled by a sucession of various different states. In the case of the Roman Empire we have a single state that existed imersed into several different civilizations. The Mandate of Heaven can be compared with the coronation as a Roman Emperor, which happened to Charlemagne in ca 800, or with states such as the Holy Roman Empire, and the cases of Germany and Russia (they had as ruler Kaiser and Tsar, respectively, two ways of saying Caesar). So in that way the Roman Empire existed until 1900 CE.

However there existed a single continuous state from the founding of Rome in 750 BCE to the fall of constantinople in 1450 CE, 2,200 years. I cannot recall any other single continuous state that lasted a comparable ammount of time. Usually they all last a few centuries and them fall.

And I completely disagree with your analysis on US and PRC. The manufacturing PRC have have NOTHING to do with military capacity. Nothing.

So did France in 1933 in regard to Germany's warmaking potential. Germany had a bigger industry than France, but France had a bigger airforce, navy and army than Germany, so France though that Germany wasn't as strong as they were. A serious mistake.

The fact is that current military power is not relevant for determining the warmaking potential of a nation. The determinants of the warmaking potential of a nation are:

1 - Size of the labor force
2 - Size of manufacturing production
3 - Distribution of manufacturing production, the more varied, the better, also heavy industry is more important than light industry to make war.
4 - Size of scientific production
5 - Military tradition (like Germany in WW2, which had inherited the military tradition of Prussia, and that gave Germany the great generals they had in WW2)

In the first 3 of these aspecs, in 2011 China exceeds the USA. In 2017, China's scientific production is also expected to exceed the USA's.

Making clothes WILL NOT make your carrier or submarines or fighters.

If WW3 broke out, China would mobilize 150 million men into the armed forces, 150 million men need uniforms.

Also, textiles are a small fraction of the colossal Chinese manufacturing sector today. Chinese motor vehicle industry is much bigger than the USA's, Chinese steel production is 6-7 times the USA's, Chinese shipbuilding production is also several times the USA's, Chinese production of industrial machinery is also much larger than the USA's.

The current capacity of China to make carriers, submarines and fighters is several times the USA's. Of course, Americans still think that they are more powerfull, but they will get a reality shock treatment when WW3 happens.

[mariusj]

Are you talking just about military power here? Well, for one thing, I don't think that we can say that a steppe clan can be considered an real empire. The Xiongu were not really "civilized". Also, they never compared to China in terms of overall power, which is not only military, but also cultural, scientific and economic.

Well, clearly the Xiongnus thought of themselves as an Empire, and the Han thought of them as an Empire. Civilized is relative; that is, to Ming China, anyone outside of Confucian sphere of influence is uncivilized, which is relative true to Ming perspective. However, if you were to call Renaissance Europe uncivilized you would be mad. Much like the comparison here, just because to Han dynasty, the danyus were uncivilized does not make them uncivilized.

ALSO, power of an empire does not depend on how civilized they are.

And what makes you think Xiongnu does not have cultural, scientific, and economic powers that would rival Han?

My point was to refute the assertion that the GDP estimates of Angus Maddison were usefull to understanding the power of states, they weren't. They didn't capture economic power, specially for the early modern era, when the Netherlands have in fact greater economic power than India and China in the 17th century, while beign a much smaller country.

You are telling me early Qing's economy is lower than that of Netherland? You would have to show me proof.

Well, the fact is that Britain at the time was so powerful that they could simply control the trade policy of the Qin. The Qin had lost sovereignty in that war, as Britain ordered what policy on the import of opium they could pursue.

Then you should really read what Qin wanted and what England wanted.
I hope you know China does not have tariff till the second opium war, at the demand of England I believe.

Now, if you say that the Qin was not forced to their knee's them I say that in the internet there are people that say that Germany did not defeat Poland in 1939. (and the fact is that Britain defeated China with less difficulty than Germany had in defeating Poland, due to the huge technological disparity in the earlier case).

How was China beaten? Poland fought a total war, all of her territory was lost, her government was in exile. What did China mobilize? How many city was fought and razed, much like the total war fought against Japan?
Was all resources used against G.B?

Just because you lost a few battles is FAR from been annihilated. Poland cease to exist. Qin still rule China with all the sovereignty and impunity prior to the war.

Britain was the first power that could project power to every corner of the planet. Britain was the world's hegemon, the first world hegemon. Other great empires before, such as the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Han Empire, ...., never became world hegemons as their influence didn't cover the entire planet.

That is a retrospective comment.
For example, world to us is global, world to a Persian is not. World to 30th century might be the Milky Way.

Of course, the fall of the byzantine empire consisted of 900 years of territorial disintegration. But the main cause was the war with Persia in the early 7th century that weakened both empires and lead to the emergence of a new power, the Islamic Caliphate, and this empire conquered about 2/3 of the Byzantine empire. After that the Byzantine Empire was never a real power.

The sack of the capital and the emergence of the Latin empire, coupled with the black death, is what I believe the root. But these are also subjective.

No. The USSR was never as powerful as the USA. In truth the USSR was just a very large third world country with lots of nukes.

And I believe in most people's definition, more nukes than the US suggests it is very very powerful, if not as powerful as the US.

The USA had in their sphere of influence Japan and the whole of Western Europe. In 1980, Japan, USA and Western Europe published 90% of the world's scientific articles, the USSR only published 8% of the world's scientific articles. There simply was no comparison, the USA was the world's leader, the USSR was just the part of the world that didn't recognize the USA as the leading power.

I don't think its fair to use the near demised state of USSR and compare it to the PRIME of US.

The USA was relative to the rest of the world, much more powerful in the 1950's than they are today.

I do not disagree.

Well, in the case of the Chinese dynasties we had a single Sinitic civilization that was ruled by a sucession of various different states. In the case of the Roman Empire we have a single state that existed imersed into several different civilizations. The Mandate of Heaven can be compared with the coronation as a Roman Emperor, which happened to Charlemagne in ca 800, or with states such as the Holy Roman Empire, and the cases of Germany and Russia (they had as ruler Kaiser and Tsar, respectively, two ways of saying Caesar). So in that way the Roman Empire existed until 1900 CE.

Germany didn't have kaiser till the unification I believe. It is a mere claim that is as strong as my claim to the Song dynasty, which is neil.
The HRE, was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire.
Russia, or its prior state, have as much claim as the Ottoman Turks. Which is not a lot.

FYI Caesar is also the lesser ruler, while Augustus is the greater ruler. Claiming to be Caesar simply shows how futile their claim was.

However there existed a single continuous state from the founding of Rome in 750 BCE to the fall of constantinople in 1450 CE, 2,200 years. I cannot recall any other single continuous state that lasted a comparable ammount of time. Usually they all last a few centuries and them fall.

So if you counted the DRAMATIC switch from Kingdom, to Republic, to Empire, to Empires, as a single unit, why can't anyone else does?

And if you think Rome was actually a single continuous state then you really should define 'single', and 'continuous.'

Not to mention all the dynastic changes.

If all the Roman dynastic changes [which is A LOT] count as one single 'empire' so should all the Chinese 'empires.'

If the legendary kingdom counts, then so does legendary Xia.

I will answer to more of your posts when I have time.

[mohistManiac]

It can be such a poor measuring tool to be looking at things from a politically contiguous point of view. So if England had a ship on the other side of the world then all of a sudden it becomes a world hegemon? I don't think so. When Americans planted a flag on the moon I didn't see them declaring themselves a solar system hegemon unless I am mistaken. Also it doesn't matter if you try to revive the empire of Rome without also being able to revive its ethos which means that when Americans failed in reproducing the same exact standards of living and social milieu of their England masters back at home (not exactly a bad thing) they essentially splintered off to become Americans with an uniquely suited ethos. When the Byzantium empire rose the Roman empire fell for the same reason, Byzantium didn't focus on reproducing the Roman ethos.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

My point was to refute the assertion that the GDP estimates of Angus Maddison were usefull to understanding the power of states, they weren't. They didn't capture economic power, specially for the early modern era, when the Netherlands have in fact greater economic power than India and China in the 17th century, while beign a much smaller country.

Well, the fact is that Britain at the time was so powerful that they could simply control the trade policy of the Qin. The Qin had lost sovereignty in that war, as Britain ordered what policy on the import of opium they could pursue.

Now, if you say that the Qin was not forced to their knee's them I say that in the internet there are people that say that Germany did not defeat Poland in 1939. (and the fact is that Britain defeated China with less difficulty than Germany had in defeating Poland, due to the huge technological disparity in the earlier case).

Again, it is not the sole determinant, but one of the most important one and arguing against that is just silly. It is common sense among power analysts that economics is the foundation for any powerful state. This does not mean the most powerful state will always have the highest GDP, but it is often the case, especially when none-nomadic states are concerned.

They didn't capture economic power, specially for the early modern era, when the Netherlands have in fact greater economic power than India and China in the 17th century, while beign a much smaller country.

The Netherlands attained more wealth than other European states from trade in the Asian markets, and used its merchant fleet to maintain the safety of that trade. That does not translate into the greatest economic power of the period. The Netherlands remains a fourth tier economic pygmy when compared to large continental empires, which the Netherland's whole wealth depended on, while the Asian continental empires had little need of Dutch or any other European products. Without the Asian and especially the Chinese market, of which Dutch trade heavily depended on, the Netherlands might not even have enough cash to maintain its powerful merchant fleet and 120,000 men army.
In fact, so important was the Chinese market that the Dutch had no problem going along with the Chinese tributary system and became the first and only European power to sent envoys which kowtowed and declared themselves as the subjects of the Chinese emperor!

Well, the fact is that Britain at the time was so powerful that they could simply control the trade policy of the Qin. The Qin had lost sovereignty in that war, as Britain ordered what policy on the import of opium they could pursue.

The only time Britain ever controlled any trade of the Qing was after 1900 in the area of sphere of influence they were restricted to, which is the upper Yangze.

[Degenrr]

anyone know about that something else ?

[mohistManiac]

I think the rise of the Mauryan empire and by extension the fall of the Alexandrian satrapies coincides with the cosmologically guided idea of Cakravala Cakravartin. This leader ruled in the hegemonic sense and fit in the highest position of political/cosmological order to have been administrated through all other leaders within the Indian hierarchy. While others have either partial or full control of a single continent, the Cakravala Cakravartin had control over (all) 4 which I would suggest indicates the extent of the known world for the Indians at that time. The Hellenistic empire which consisted of the defeated Persians by the Greeks held the domain of 2 such continents while the Mauryans overtaking the satraps are the third and China being the fourth. Perhaps through religious import the Mauryans held some influence over the Chinese. The Tibetans perhaps fashioned the myth of Shambhala out of a combination of Chinese ideals with Indian ones. Note that Shambhala could be a creation of the imaginary mind by converging the Chinese ideals of immortality and secluded personal cultivation with Indian ideals of a supreme Chakravartin king entitled to all land. Why else would such a mythically established kingdom, which by the way is home to only enlghtened individuals, a quality so necessary to the access of kingdom also be the birthplace of all the Kalki kings? What could have help spurred the Qins in the Chinese western frontier to extreme political fervor to unify China could very possibly have arisen out of the Indian notion of Chakravartin being formed during this time period.

Edited by mohistManiac, 08 October 2012 - 09:58 PM.