192 replies to this topic

[Kenneth]

The documentary "Lost legions of Qin" suggested that qin used bronze because of weapon standardizations. As weapon found in the tomb has millimeters of difference. Since ironworking is not as advance as bronzeworking at the time, qin choose bronze because it can have better tolerances.

P.S. Steel is quite well know in the period. as Zhao, Yan, and wei have steel swords and many farm tools of qin are made of iron.

The standardisation of Qin is not perhaps so remarkable when the small amount of actual spear heads and such used in the sample is announced, which seems more like a dozen pieces, and as many swords again. (the figures that states thousands of weapons were found include arrow heads in the figure)
Since bronze was cast, and the same mould might be reused...and then moulds made around existing spear heads only small margins of difference are not really surprising...but not strictly nessecary on anything apart from a mechanism with moving parts.
After all if you stick a spear into a mans gut and a person beside you sticks another spear into him after he is down and the tolerance of the spear was <0.5mm then the man with the spear in his gut won't care.

Iron may be well known in the late Warring States but we need to make the distinction between weapon grade steel/iron and the cast iron for farm objects or household use. Cast iron is cheap and plentiful, but the technology of making folded blades of low carbon steel that were truly superior to bronze does not occur untill the Han. The steel blades from late East Zhou which were commented on by 2 authors on early steel and weapons in China commented that some of the tested blades where not actually physically superior to a good bronze, and that the weapons made in the West Han dynasty were improved on the late East Zhou steel and therefore bronze only fades out of use at this time.

[Wujiang]

I do not think any of us really think little of Western achievements. More like... since the world more readily recognises western historic achievements, our praise of our own history/culture/advancements is a little louder due to feeling that it's not heard enough.

I disagree. I don't sing any culture's praises just because they are not heard. But I think that those people who say "go to Rome and see the collosium" to 'prove' the superiority of Rome are very ignorant. Not because Rome is inferior. But such people often look at Rome in isolation and shut themselves out from the world. Enjoying the ego comfort that there isn't any other culture that is as good as themselves.

For such people, I woulds say "go and see some of the buildings in Xian today" or those digital reconstructions based on historical data. Better yet, look at the technological advances of both sides during the time baring in mind that different does not mean better or worse. Look at what purpose they serve.

If you have been living in caves all your life, you will find a mud hut impressive. More so if you refuse to look at a brick house when people tell you they exist.

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

“I disagree. I don't sing any culture's praises just because they are not heard. But I think that those people who say "go to Rome and see the collosium" to 'prove' the superiority of Rome are very ignorant. Not because Rome is inferior. But such people often look at Rome in isolation and shut themselves out from the world. Enjoying the ego comfort that there isn't any other culture that is as good as themselves.

For such people, I woulds say "go and see some of the buildings in Xian today" or those digital reconstructions based on historical data. Better yet, look at the technological advances of both sides during the time baring in mind that different does not mean better or worse. Look at what purpose they serve.

If you have been living in caves all your life, you will find a mud hut impressive. More so if you refuse to look at a brick house when people tell you they exist.”

Well we never said that the Chinese were primitive during Roman times, were saying that the Romans were more advents…. I mean dude the Romans had modern surgery…. And pluming that can be rivaled during modern times…. And that the Romans have such heavy influents in modern day….

“We have to take climate into account too in that case. If your farmer can feed more people, then there should be more people available to do anything else.
Therefore science progress in China was faster than elsewhere in the world.”

That mite be true but you see that the Romans had the aqueduct, which stretched 100’s and 100’s of miles to bring water to there cities and some still to this day continue to bring water. They built the most advanced plumbing in history until the modern age…. Roman aqueducts brought 300 million gallons of water per day to the cities. The aqueduct can make farm lands places that were not possible…. As for farming I think it was not 3 but 5 people… Its not that bad guys…


What’s up with the Crossbow and Steel orgy every time we have Rome Vs Han? The Romans had them too (Romans had Nortic steel)... Dude!The Romans even had hand flamethrowers be for any one in history….

Their is a crossbow called Gastraphetes it’s a much stronger one then the other Roman crossbows. The Gastraphetes was way too strong for any man to throw by hand. So he had to brace the engine against himself and draw the string into successive grooves until it was all the way back. There were more advancements made of the Gastraphetes by the Romans…. So, the Roman crossbows we were talking about in the other thread was the weaker ones. The weaker crossbow was throw by hand and it was to make it fire more…

Guys, I fond out that in the height of the Roman Empire the Romans were not variable to any type of missile fire…. The Roman LORICA SEGMENTATA armor can block any type of missals. I sow a study about this and it blocked arrows multiple times, rocks multiple times, Ballista bolts multiple times, Ballista darts multiple times, and more….(using the Same armor) And the Ballista is much more powerful then any Crossbow... The Romans also had the first chain weapons… “The Repeating ballista was the first Gatlin gun in history…” it was also one of the first chain weapons ever made in History…. it was very, very powerful....

The Roman army is not just an infantry based but an mechanical and siege based…. The Romans bin know to use there siege weapons not only agents fortifications but also use it for anti-infantry , anti-cavalry, and anti-archers….

Some more stuff

Roman medical science was very advance, they knew so many things that are still being practiced today. Especially the “trainers” in sports (trainers are pretty much like medics).
The Romans have the same exact medical tools that a modern doctor will have. The only difference between the modern tools and the Roman tools is that, the Roman tools were made out of bronze also theirs are much more decorated, and modern tools are not decorated, and they’re made of stainless steel I think. Other than that, if you lighten up the medical tools together, they will look exactly the same (beside the decoration of the Roman tools).

They even had history’s first sanitized treatment…. Their knowledge was so great that not even one gladiator has died from the treatment of a Roman doctor. Gladiators will be badly wounded, or heart, the very next day or in 3 days or so (depending on the damage, of how long they will stay with the doctor) they will be good as new. In these recent discoveries of these tools and medical science of the Romans, they have discovered that the ancient Romans perform virtually modern-day surgeries.

They organized the first field medics in there army (this is the first time in history).
The Roman medic were white, had medical supplies, and had standard armor, and helmets. The Roman's medical officer was "medicus" and their equivalent of modern-day enlisted medic were called the "medicus ordinarius". The medicus ordinarious was drawn from the ranks of soldiers, and trained by the Roman army…. “Our own armed forces traditionally train and employ technicians to care for troops in the field just as the early Romans did.”
http://www.idmtassoc...n.org/idmt2.htm
I lost some other links or sites, also got this information from some books while back from the school library…
This site is about the history of medics, yes everyone did have some form of medics, but the Romans took it up in another level. Having the first field medics…

This should tell you all that the Romans were far from primitive…. They had so, so much more, the post would be way, way to long if I put it all. This is way I think and most historians would say that the Romans were the most advents....

Edited by Puerto Rican Legionary, 26 October 2005 - 02:06 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Well we never said that the Chinese were primitive during Roman times, were saying that the Romans were more advents…. I mean dude the Romans had modern surgery…. And pluming that can be rivaled during modern times…. And that the Romans have such heavy influents in modern day….

No they weren't, your generalizing, with no prove.
The most important aspect of civilization is the living standard. And the Han probably surpassed the Roman in that aspect, although we must realize that all civilizations prior to the late 19th century had a comparable standard of living. The other factors are of secondary importance since they are forged by the respective terrain and needs of the time.
And what describe this "modern surgery" of yours. The fact is, both empire had different chemical treatments. The Ma Wang Dui woman was fully preserved with her skin in tact! Han also start to have medical experiments on animals.

Guys, I fond out that in the height of the Roman Empire the Romans were not variable to any type of missile fire…. The Roman LORICA SEGMENTATA armor can block any type of missals. I sow a study about this and it blocked arrows multiple times, rocks multiple times, Ballista bolts multiple times, Ballista darts multiple times, and more….(using the Same armor) And the Ballista is much more powerful then any Crossbow...

Whats the distance? 500 yards? paper armour could do the same.
The fact is, segemntata is wrought iron, Han armour contain folded steel. The quality is obvious.

As for the other big claims such as aqueducts, I can bring just as much one handed argument on Han canal, artificial lakes, paper, compass and the like. Prior to industrialization, these peculiar strengths only pertains to specific areas and never designate the overall technological sophistication.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 09 August 2008 - 06:26 PM.

[ih8eurocentrix]

If it can stop a ballistae then ballistaes must surely be weak...not more powerful than a crossbow

[somechineseperson]

I think the kind of comparison to show "which side is better" is really not very wise. Perhaps it's better to just compare and leave out the "who is better" bit...

[somechineseperson]

Perhaps it is worthwhile to start another "comparison" thread on Han and Rome, but this time focussing more on the "cerebral" aspects of intellectual history: theoretical sciences, philosophy, mathematics, theology etc.

I don't think a question such as "who is better" has much meaning. But perhaps we can ask who is more sophisticated.

Recently I've been browsing through The City of God written by St. Augustine in late Roman times (China's Jin Dynasty) I must say I am impressed by the depth, breadth and the sheer volume of the work. How do you think the philosophical works of the Western Han Confucian philosopher Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu Fanlu compare with it? Or perhaps Kongzi Jiayu by Wang Su during the Three Kingdoms period?

The old Roman pagan religion is IMO certainly no match for China's Confucianism and early Daoism. Even Roman authors lament the degree of corruption involved in the old pagan religion. China's official state religion "closely approaches monotheism" (according to a Catholic website) and the Supereme God of Heaven was never represented with idols or images, while the Romans were worshipping idols. However, things became much better in Rome when Christianity became the official religion. (Yes, I do think monotheism is objectively superior to polytheism, monotheism replacing polytheism is like iron replacing bronze or steel replacing iron) I agree with St. Augustine that it is ridiculous for Romans to think that it was Christianity that led to their downfall whereas in reality it is precisely the opposite, it is the corrupt pagan religion of Rome that led to the Fall of Rome. Christianity wasn't introduced into China until 635 AD, more than one and half centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And even then it never gained the sort of prominence it did in the West. According to some western sources though it appears that Christianity did flourish for a while in Tang China and a few Tang emperors even accepted Christianity. (Albeit as one of the numerous religions they accept)

In mathematics, philosophy and the theoretical sciences, the Romans had the benefit of Greek learning. Formal logic and Euclidean geometry were certainly their strengths compared with Chinese philosophy and mathematics. Indeed, it wasn't until the late sixteenth century for formal logic and geometry to be introduced into Chinese scholarship by Catholic missionaries.

Edited by somechineseperson, 02 November 2005 - 05:44 PM.

[somechineseperson]

Ok, maybe I am acting a bit like a hypocrite. "Who is more sophisticated" is just another way of saying "Who is better", so out with it then. Let's just discuss who's better with respect to the intellectual aspects of Han and Rome.

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

You think I’m generalizing just look at the other posts….

No prove? Sense no buddy watches the History cannel or History times channel or even READ BOOKS, I’ll try to find a web site for you about Roman medical sciences. But the Romans had a very good life stile, they traded with the Han and others….
And the reason I say Roman pluming did rivaled during modern times, is because it was not in till 20th sentry that cites had as much water as the Romans did, It was not in till 1985 AD that New York city had as much or almost as much water as the Romans. With such pluming you can have bigger cities, more farms, and a much hire standard of living.

“If it can stop a ballistae then ballistaes must surely be weak...not more powerful than a crossbow”

No its more powerful then a crossbow, you can even read about it…. I mean dude the Romans also had the first chain weapons….

“Yeah, and whats the distance? 500 yards? paper armour could do the same.”
Do not remember but it was in the same distends as the bulls skull that got a very clean pierce rite threw (made a bullet hole on it), and the bolt kept going and then a another clean pierce threw a wood bored and the water melon. Think each Roman legion had like 200 or more ballistaes…

The fact is, segemntata is wrought iron, Han armour contain folded steel. The quality is obvious.”

But the design was good, 3 Example: In the US theirs a target it is only 2 inch of steel but not even the most powerful armor or Tank piercing gun can pierce it, this gun can pierce I think like 4- 6 inches of steel maybe more but can not pierce 2 inch of steel of that target. Gothic armor, over all most gothic armor was not thicker to regular plat, but it was the design of this armor that made it the best pry-gun age armor made. Therese a armor vehicle that the cops and I even think the army use it, it has only 2 or 3 in of steel and projectiles has a hard time piercing it…
And as for the Roman armor, it was the most advanced armor in ancient time and I think it was mad of Nordic steel. As for the Han armor, it was small steel or iron strips connected to gather with some material, wile the Roman armor were iron or steel PLATES connected to gather and used metal parts and bolts.
I fond out that chain-mill was much stronger then I thought maybe stronger then Lamellar armor (more details lather).

Edited by Puerto Rican Legionary, 03 November 2005 - 05:04 PM.

[somechineseperson]

You think I’m generalizing just look at the other posts….

No prove? Sense no buddy watches the History cannel or History times channel or even READ BOOKS, I’ll try to find a web site for you about Roman medical sciences. But the Romans had a very good life stile, they traded with the Han and others….
And the reason I say Roman pluming did rivaled during modern times, is because it was not in till 20th sentry that cites had as much water as the Romans did, It was not in till 1985 AD that New York city had as much or almost as much water as the Romans. With such pluming you can have bigger cities, more farms, and a much hire standard of living.
“If it can stop a ballistae then ballistaes must surely be weak...not more powerful than a crossbow”

No its more powerful then a crossbow, you can even read about it…. I mean dude the Romans also had the first chain weapons….

“Yeah, and whats the distance? 500 yards? paper armour could do the same.”
Do not remember but it was in the same distends as the bulls skull that got a very clean pierce rite threw (made a bullet hole on it), and the bolt kept going and then a another clean pierce threw a wood bored and the water melon. Think each Roman legion had like 200 or more ballistaes…

The fact is, segemntata is wrought iron, Han armour contain folded steel. The quality is obvious.”

But the design was good, 3 Example: In the US theirs a target it is only 2 inch of steel but not even the most powerful armor or Tank piercing gun can pierce, this gun can pierce I think like 4- 6 inches of steel maybe more but can not pierce 2 inch of steel of that target. Gothic armor, over all most gothic armor was not thicker to regular plat, but it was the design of this armor that made it the best pry-gun age armor made. Therese a armor vehicle that the cops and I even think the army use has only 2 or 3 in of steel and projectiles has a hard time piercing it…
And as for the Roman armor, it was the most advanced armor in ancient time and I think it was mad of Nordic steel. As for the hand armor, it was small steel or iron strips connected to gather with some material, wile the Roman armor were iron or steel PLATES connected to gather and used metal parts and bolts.
I fond out that chain-mill was much stronger then I thought maybe stronger then Lamellar armor (more details lather).

Yes, with more water you can have bigger cities. But suppose for a given amount of water you get a particular sized city, then remember that the Han cities were just as big. (More than a million in the city of Chang'an - what the Greeks called Thyne Metropolis or Sera Metropolis) So I think the amount of water in them is perhaps comparable according to this line of reasoning?

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

“Yes, with more water you can have bigger cities. But suppose for a given amount of water you get a particular sized city, then remember that the Han cities were just as big. (More than a million in the city of Chang'an - what the Greeks called Thyne Metropolis or Sera Metropolis) So I think the amount of water in them is perhaps comparable according to this line of reasoning?”

True, but more water can make faster growth, this is way Rome was the first city in earth or even in history that reach the population of a million it still grow in till the height of the Empire and it was the biggest city on earth at that time.

As for amount of water in them is perhaps comparable according to this line of reasoning, I thik yes it is. But the Romans had the best pluming and the concept of citizen wile the Han had more of an feudal society.

Edited by Puerto Rican Legionary, 02 November 2005 - 06:28 PM.

[somechineseperson]

“Yes, with more water you can have bigger cities. But suppose for a given amount of water you get a particular sized city, then remember that the Han cities were just as big. (More than a million in the city of Chang'an - what the Greeks called Thyne Metropolis or Sera Metropolis) So I think the amount of water in them is perhaps comparable according to this line of reasoning?”

True, but more water can make faster growth, this is way Rome was the first city in earth or even in history that reach the population of a million it still grow in till the height of the Empire and it was the biggest city on earth at that time.

As for amount of water in them is perhaps comparable according to this line of reasoning, I thik yes it is. But the Romans had the best pluming and the concept of citizen wile the Han had more of an feudal society.

Rome did reach the population of a million earlier than Han Chang'an, that is true. But Han Chang'an also grew very rapidly during the first few decades of the Western Han Dynasty. Also Chang'an was actually a much more ancient capital. It was first constructed in the 12th century BC by the first Zhou Dynasty kings, it was called Haojing back then. That was centuries before the Romans formed their first state.

Rome did have the concept of citizen, but they formed only a small minority of the total population. Most people in the Roman Empire were slaves, whereas in Han China there were comparatively far fewer slaves. Actually Han Dynasty wasn't really a feudal society, it was the Zhou Dynasty (1122 - 256 BC) that was feudal (at least during its first half). Han Dynasty was very centralised, but during the Western Han period at least the commoners were directly ruled by a Confucian-legalist government, rather than with several layers of nobles in between. During Eastern Han times the gentry class gained greater prominence so the system did become more feudal-like.

And who is to say a feudal system is necessarily inferior? Remember Europeans eventually did adopt a feudal system centuries after the fall of Rome.

[Bao Pu]

re: "who is more sophisticated"; "who's better with respect to the intellectual aspects"

-- My experience here at CHF leads me to believe that the answer is always CHINA. Sorry - just being honest.

[Wujiang]

re: "who is more sophisticated"; "who's better with respect to the intellectual aspects"

-- My experience here at CHF leads me to believe that the answer is always CHINA. Sorry - just being honest.

I seriously don't think that is relevant as this is after all a CHINA history forum. But I do think that the things listed is uncomparible. Simply put, the things that are being compared is very much value-based.

We are talking about political systems such as Confucianism vs Democracy. We can claim that democracy lasted to this day all we want, but it doesn't stop the fact that it was and still is flawed iin many many ways. As such, the fact that it endured is not different from people today believing that prayers and the power of god will cure them of their illness and they have no need for doctors.

What religion is better obviously is value based. But one should note that there is no such thing as religion in China in the modern sense. Sure, there are various gods, but no real mainstream religion organization.

Logic and science is slightly more comparible, but not by much. It is important to realise that you are making the assumption that if people didn't get things done using this method, than the results are null. That if people did not using geometry to solve their problems, then it doesn't matter if they found a way to stop the world from rotating, it is not a not a sign if sophistication. That in itself is the "Truth" based education which people often mistakes. X is true, X works in real life, therefore Y which is not X is not true and therefore will not work or the fact that it works should be mute.

Sorry, but these value based comparisons are very much things which Eurocentrics and Sinocentric people play with. Of very little value really.

[somechineseperson]

I seriously don't think that is relevant as this is after all a CHINA history forum. But I do think that the things listed is uncomparible. Simply put, the things that are being compared is very much value-based.

We are talking about political systems such as Confucianism vs Democracy. We can claim that democracy lasted to this day all we want, but it doesn't stop the fact that it was and still is flawed iin many many ways. As such, the fact that it endured is not different from people today believing that prayers and the power of god will cure them of their illness and they have no need for doctors.

What religion is better obviously is value based. But one should note that there is no such thing as religion in China in the modern sense. Sure, there are various gods, but no real mainstream religion organization.

Logic and science is slightly more comparible, but not by much. It is important to realise that you are making the assumption that if people didn't get things done using this method, than the results are null. That if people did not using geometry to solve their problems, then it doesn't matter if they found a way to stop the world from rotating, it is not a not a sign if sophistication. That in itself is the "Truth" based education which people often mistakes. X is true, X works in real life, therefore Y which is not X is not true and therefore will not work or the fact that it works should be mute.

Sorry, but these value based comparisons are very much things which Eurocentrics and Sinocentric people play with. Of very little value really.

Who says values can't be compared? If technology can be compared then so can values. Perhaps it is more difficult to say which one is better but ultimately there is only One Truth, One Way, so relative to that some must be better than others.

The lack of Formal Logic, for instance, is clearly a handicap in many branches of science and philosophy.

Let us carry your argument forward then, see where it leads. Now in a way you are contradicting what you are saying, because implicitly you do assume an objective standard of comparison, namely utility.

It is a great fallacy of our post-modern world to claim values - ethics and asethetics, cannot be compared. Obviously absolute relativity between things doesn't exist and as long as absolute relativity doesn't exist, comparison is possible.

There was an official religious orthodoxy in ancient China, namely the official imperial state religion, backed up by orthodox Confucianism.

Edited by somechineseperson, 03 November 2005 - 12:30 AM.