[south]

They say that the Tang dynasty was the height of Chinese power and is like today's America, but is it as strong as today's America?

[Alexander39]

south, on Jun 3 2005, 02:44 AM, said:

They say that the Tang dynasty was the height of Chinese power and is like today's America, but is it as strong as today's America?

Nope, nowhere near that level. even whitout ABC weapons, the US can crushed each and every single nations millitary on earth whit very little losses for themself, occupy same nation(s) is another matter entirely, as the Neo-cons in US have found out too their bitter regret.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

No it can't. The American military cannot crush every power on earth with or without nuclear weapons. Russian nuclear defense alone can make assured mutual destruction with America on almost equal terms. Britain and France are not far behind, China while still lack the means, is catching up and could at least cripple American power if such a war occur.
Russian and Chinese conventional defense has enough power to deter any possible American invasion.

Although its extremely difficult to provide an accurate estimate of ancient statistical figures. The Tang exerted its influence over a portion of the world that was probably at least comparable to modern US. In the 7th century the imperial Tang dynasty maintained its influence literally throughout Asia in a series of protectorates, tributaries and vassalages.
The early Tang empire under the heavenly khaghan political system was foremost a system of loosely controlled protectorates, vassals, and dependencies. It was a captive exporter and importer for the entire upper steppe and central Asia. Dominating economically and politically a span of territory through proxy control of vassal and tributary states in regions including all of Upper Asia, northeast Asia, Most of central Asia, the various Southeast Asian states, a few Northern Indian states, Tibet and span from the Pacific to the Ural Moutains of which all nomads depend on Chinese goods to thrive. A huge span of territory and population that incorporated something like half of humanity, through either economical or political means and is something that should not be overlooked.
Its impossible to compare today's state with a empire of the past when statistic is extremely vague and uncertain, yet even allowing for a approximation, there was superiority for each, the Tang at its height probably had a larger share of the world's output producing something like between 1/4-2/5 of the world's GDP compared to 21.9 percent for present U.S., it also controlled roughly 30 percent of the world's population opposed to less than 5 for the U.S., territorial wise it also have a larger share of the world's politically defined zones. Add to this is the greater quantity of states in the 7th century compared to today(indicating smaller and weaker competitors for the Tang), the lack of a UN to restrict Tang power, and no vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Yet America has the advantage of certain decisive conventional military technological superiority over much of the world which pre industrial states did not, its internal structure is also more stable, while its military bases are wider spread.

In conclusion we can remain that the U.S. was the supreme power of today and Tang empire was the supreme power of its day and let it rest.

This post has been edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada: 29 June 2009 - 01:15 PM

[tadamson]

Ignoring the rathe rstrange way the question was put and the resulting modern comments......

Culture wise the Tang were seen as the absolute pinnacle of the East Asian world they lived in.

Military wise, the failed expeditions against Korea by the Sui and early Tang lowered prestige. The later, "sucessful" invasion of Korea, bankrupted the state. Playing off Turks, Tibetans etc only worked for so long.

rgds.
Tom...

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The Korean expedition was not viewed as a failure in that time, it was in fact recorded down as a victory by contemporary historians, only later historians such as Simaguang considered it a failure, yet it actually have mixed results. Tang might have failed to subdue Koguryo, but it did succeed in halting Koguryo's invasion of Silla, destroying Koguryo's main army and taking a few cities such as Liao Yang. The Korean campaign is only one of the undertakings where the Tang did not score a decisive victory, in all other wars down to 670, Tang victories were undisputed. Nor did the Koguryo war lower Tang prestige, the Xue Yang tuo thought Tang was weakened and invaded with all their horde, only to be routed by Li Si Qi and exterminated two year later and incorporated into the Tang administrative empire. The U.S. has its own indecisive victories even at the height of its dominance, aside from Vietnam and Korea, one just have to take a look at the deep hole that the American army is in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Quote

"The later, "sucessful" invasion of Korea, bankrupted the state. "

No, it didn't. To the extent that multiple wars are still conducted at the same time.

Quote

"Playing off Turks, Tibetans etc only worked for so long."

It worked for half a century. With the turks been subjugated and the Tibetans only gained a strategic foothold by defeating Tu Yu Hun of which the Tang did not choose to give support. The rise of Tibet was simply a bad grand strategic policy on the Tang's part.

This post has been edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada: 29 June 2009 - 01:07 PM

[lobster]

SimaQian? Or is it Sima Guang?

[Alexander39]

*sigh* Warhead when we try to set two empires up against one another, we also try to be fair, fks in my post i ekskluded the ABC & G weapons for that matter, simply becourse they are what makes it a fools errand to make major wars between the major powers.
USA is in that unique position that they throu superior and far more advanced C3 tech and reconnesance in real time, and the abillity to deny others the same.
can and would eliminatet each and every millitary force on a one to one basis whit very little loss relative to their opponents. No other nation/empire in the world has EVER been in the position to beforehand could predict that they would win the war on the battlefield, and be right about it. It is only duing occupation that the US armed forces becomes relativly more vunerable.

Fks today the Chinese armed forces is quite powerful, but what would happend in a conventional war against USA (Little green men from mars has eaten ABC&G weapons).
First off each and every satellite sending information & comunication to the chinese armed forces would be shut down or shot down. next the powergrids in China would be attacked relentlessly and each and every active radar would get a AARM right down their throat. once the eyes and ears of the chinese armed forces are blinded, they would attack critical infrastructure such as bridges and refineries. + television towers would come tumbeling down.
I wont bore you whit desribing you whit how the millitary forces would be cribbled piecemeal by the US. it is enough to say that even throu that the end result would be a resounding US victory, China is simply to large to occupy, unless you want to behave like the mongols or Nazi's IE one man dead equals nearest town wiped out.

It has been said that in todays world, war is a sure way to financial ruin this is true becourse we as a community the world over try to upheld both written and unwritten laws conserning debt and debtors in a preventive effort to head off any major depression like the one in 29'
So when will war be relevant??
When a nation / people really dosn't feel it has anything to lose, war can seem like a good alternative since you start from the bottom anyway, this in turn can pull others into the fight that really dont want anything to do whit it, just out off sheer selfpresevation and protection.

And i repeat NO EMPIRE IN HISTORY has had the abillity to predict and be right about it when we are talking war. Next it is correct that the Tang has a large a welldeveloped mosaic of alliances and had directly or indirectly control or influence over much of the world and maybe up to ½ the population in the known world (Ekscluding the Americas), BUT the same is equally true about the US, they have in their power to financially ruin or punish virtually each and every nation on earth, they wont do it becourse they would hurt almost as much, but that was also the case whit the Tang, on the other hand there is no single nation that can threaten the US/Tang in the same way, only alliances can do that, EU first and foremost.

The Tang empire at it zenith were by far the greatest and in many ways the riches and most advanced empire of its time. but i will still give the US the advantage in that regard.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

.

This post has been edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada: 24 July 2008 - 05:32 PM

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

"*sigh* Warhead when we try to set two empires up against one another, we also try to be fair,"

We are. You are the one who insist on the difference.

Quote

"fks in my post i ekskluded the ABC & G weapons for that matter, simply becourse they are what makes it a fools errand to make major wars between the major powers."

Exactly, this is why the supposed superiority in military spending is offset by modern nuclear devices which restricted the Superpower's actual ability to dictate terms.

Quote

"USA is in that unique position that they throu superior and far more advanced C3 tech and reconnesance in real time, and the abillity to deny others the same. can and would eliminatet each and every millitary force on a one to one basis whit very little loss relative to their opponents. No other nation/empire in the world has EVER been in the position to beforehand could predict that they would win the war on the battlefield, and be right about it. It is only duing occupation that the US armed forces becomes relativly more vunerable.""I wont bore you whit desribing you whit how the millitary forces would be cribbled piecemeal by the US. it is enough to say that even throu that the end result would be a resounding US victory, China is simply to large to occupy, unless you want to behave like the mongols or Nazi's IE one man dead equals nearest town wiped out."

No it can't, unless its against a tiny power like that of Iraq, total military victory today is as uncertain as ever. For America to successfully invade countries like China, sea operation is essential. Yet, modern ballistic missiles gives the defender every advantage, because smart bombs makes mounting offensive operations like a sea invasion of China hopelessly expensive and dangerous to mount. Again, the aircraft carrier is the basis of American power projection. Given the ranges involved, naval aviation is much too inefficient and vulnerable to achieve the necessary air superiority over a developed shore-based adversary armed with high-speed precision-guided munitions. An invasion of a country like China require a logistical build-up of unprecedented magnitude which would take years to prepare, time enough for the PLA to create large quantities of supersonic anti-ship missiles. Its always going to be harder for the anti-missile missile to find and hit its incoming target flying at Mach 3 than an anti-ship missile flying at the same speed to destroy a surface unit traveling at a maximum speed of 30 knots.
The advent of the ramjet anti-ship missile will probably make it impossible for potential invaders to protect amphibious forces, since the surface ship is more costly than the intelligent missile by far. The intelligent missile therefore gives the defenders an unbeatable economy of force, and a geographically remote power like the United States would find it impossible to project proportional protection for its offensive forces. Without access to fixed tactical airbases and forward logistical bases near China, such a long-distance operation would be impossible. Even if the United States could develop an intercontinental range for smart bombs, the sheer number of potential land-based targets would make their use extremely uneconomical.

Furthermore, today, the military is a paradox, existing only so that it need not be used, which can be seen in the way that the United States is sometimes held prisoner by its own strategic alliances. The disparity in military technology today is being partly offset by strategic weapons such as ICBMs, submarine technologies, and weapons of mass destruction. Control of sea and sky, and with it the practicality of offensive operations, is less certain now than in former days. And the doomsday nature of nuclear weapons made it politically even less usable, and only further restrain Amrica's ability to conduct aggressions against nations vastly inferior in military, countries such as India, Pakistan, and even North Korea to an extent. In fact the fear of Nuclear holocaust made the Americans cower back even against tertiary powers such as the new communist China, and rather than resort to a nuclear strike, the United States preferred to suffer stalemate in Korea and the humiliation of a preventable defeat in Vietnam. For the US, only under clear threat of invasion does the military become its measure in terms of achieving concrete political goals. Hence also the relative impotence of standing armies today than in the past.
The Tang, on the other hand, was free to attack and take out any state that so much as showing a sign of disrespect, such as the campaign against Chibir's khanate on the Irtysh, taken by Tai Zong in 649 for simply refusing to come in person to pay homage at court.

Quote

"First off each and every satellite sending information & comunication to the chinese armed forces would be shut down or shot down. next the powergrids in China would be attacked relentlessly and each and every active radar would get a AARM right down their throat. once the eyes and ears of the chinese armed forces are blinded, they would attack critical infrastructure such as bridges and refineries. + television towers would come tumbeling down."

In theory every modern power has the electronic warfare and ASAT potential to disrupt space-based reconnaissance and earth-space communications. The Soviets were experimenting with SIS thirty years ago. Today, its possible even for a power like North Korea to threaten satellite assets and interrupt signals.

Quote

"Next it is correct that the Tang has a large a welldeveloped mosaic of alliances and had directly or indirectly control or influence over much of the world and maybe up to ½ the population in the known world (Ekscluding the Americas),"

The whole population of America is estimated to be only 8 million at the turn of the mellenium. Its not going to make a significant difference to the world population of roughly 210 million.

Quote

"BUT the same is equally true about the US, they have in their power to financially ruin or punish virtually each and every nation on earth, "

Thus I said the comparison is meaningless. Both are strong for their time.

This post has been edited by warhead: 27 June 2008 - 06:51 PM

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Edit

This post has been edited by warhead: 27 June 2008 - 06:52 PM

[TMPikachu]

The USA today is the strongest human thing to ever happen. Tang and USA are comparable as the strongest in their times, but compared to each other... The USA is the only country in the world that still has military bases around the world, did Tang have anything comparable to that? (garrisons in vassal states?)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

US military bases are dependent on the good will of other nations not from direct enforcement, although one could argue its forced informally. Yet there is no reason for Tang to project its power over the world other than the fact that technological dificulty restrict such and no nation could, which means the Tang had no need even IF it could. The Tang was secure and its power projected is a much higher share of the world.

[Merchant]

I found it interesting that the US has not learned from the past empires' most important tatic "use the conqured people to continue to conqest". One has to say Tang was much better at it, through force and deplomacy it was able to expend it's control deep into central asia right after years of bloody civil war.
Tang empire's imperial power lasted a good 120 years. Let's see if the US empire can last that long. Shall we say US established as the dominating power after the WW2. It's been 60 years. Can it last another 60 years? Only time will tell.

I would say the British empire was stronger than Tang. The Brits established it's power after defeating the Spanish Armada. ~200 years of world domination.

This post has been edited by General_Zhaoyun: 06 June 2005 - 04:00 AM

[General_Zhaoyun]

Merchant, on Jun 6 2005, 01:31 AM, said:

I would say the British empire was stronger than Tang.  The Brits established it's power after defeating the Spanish Armada. ~200 years of world domination.

Well, the british can't hardly be exerting 'world dominance' until 1800. It started with the defeat of the Spanish Armada in the late 16th century, but it really came into the world scene with industrial revolution in 1750. The british dominated the world scene from 1800 to 1945, where it reaches its height of power during 1930s, where its empire spanned the globe.

However, its economic and military power cannot be compared to America today.
America became a world power in 1898 with the defeat of Spanish, and become a superpower in 1945, then a hyper-power in 1990. It has a global influence on the world and more often, US uses both diplomatism and military to exert its economic or political interests in the world.

The US is currently the largest economy in the world, and its military is the most powerful in the world, having a military strength comparable to next 18 countries' combined military strength and the world largest navy (13 carrier fleet). I forsee US going to continue to exert global dominance (hegemony) at least over the next 50 years.

In terms of economic prosperity, Tang can be comparable to America. In terms of military, it almost equal to America, but I would say a dominant power in Asia. Culturally, it almost revivaled America, but haven't exerted so much influence as America, because American has given birth to new cultures since 1960s and shaped the world.. (pop culture, america consumer culture, american movie, internet culture etc.)

This post has been edited by General_Zhaoyun: 06 June 2005 - 09:27 AM

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"I found it interesting that the US has not learned from the past empires' most important tatic "use the conqured people to continue to conqest". One has to say Tang was much better at it, through force and deplomacy it was able to expend it's control deep into central asia right after years of bloody civil war.
Tang empire's imperial power lasted a good 120 years. Let's see if the US empire can last that long. Shall we say US established as the dominating power after the WW2. It's been 60 years. Can it last another 60 years? Only time will tell."


No, Tang's imperial empire lasted from its establishemnt in 618-906 a total span of 292 year. Its "dominance" existed for roughly 130 years from 626-756 while the world order it forged only lasted 4 decades of its early conquests from roughly 630-670. Time has no relevance to strength, power is simply the ability for a state to dictate terms on another that the other state or not otherwise do. Power is a relation, not an atribute, much less a span of time.


"I would say the British empire was stronger than Tang. The Brits established it's power after defeating the Spanish Armada. ~200 years of world domination."

Again, time is irrelevant it could be just ten years, but if that state manage to dictate terms on every part of the globe absolutely(such as conquering the world), then that state is the most powerful in hisotry in that 10 year of time span. And no, the British only dominated the world for about 100 years, the Pax Britanica lasted after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 to the eve of world war 1 in 1914. While the time period that it actually had little challenge lasted around 15 years, from the defeat of Russia in the Crimea at roughly 1855 to the creation of the German Empire in 1870.



"In terms of economic prosperity, Tang can be comparable to America. In terms of military, it almost equal to America, but I would say a dominant power in Asia. "

In economic terms it surpassed modern U.S. at least in the area of output due to its large population. Militarily its somewhat less in global terms but about equal when applying the auxiliars of the subjugated people such as the Tujue. What the U.S. had thats superior is its financial dominance which did not exist during Tang times as well as its strategic dominance which encircled the globe.


"Culturally, it almost revivaled America, but haven't exerted so much influence as America, because American has given birth to new cultures since 1960s and shaped the world.. (pop culture, america consumer culture, american movie, internet culture etc.)"

To repeat again, culture is not power, other nations CHOOSE to adopt Amerian culture, its not ENFORCED on them, power is only exercised when a nation FORCE another nation to do something that they would not do. And cultural influence for the most part does not in any sense mean a nation is powerful, since France is still the cultural center of Europe in the 19th century despite Britain dominated politically. Information is not culture, the U.S. might not give another nation some technological information and force another nation to do something it wants, but again power need to be exercised from the ability for the state to force its command.