as stated

The human wave stereotype, but i also find the fireworks crack annoying.

lol agreed

i personally as a student of archery, find the stereotype regarding Chinese archery being mostly crossbow quite annoying

Kong Zi himself stated that among the 6 arts of a perfect gentleman, archery was one of them, he certainly wasn't talking about crossbows

In descending order of annoyance

- pacifists and cowardly
- Massed humanwave armies
- gunpowder only in firecrackers
- Europeans introduced cannon and guns to the Chinese

Hmmm, that's a hard one, they all pretty d**** annoying, but the most is probably the human wave one yes. if they are meantioning the others like crossbows at least they realize chinese used crossbow (which is a improvement from pitchforks at least) if they meantioned firecracker at least they realized Chinese invented gun powder... if they say the wabbly Jian at least they seen a Chinese movie ROFL

I voted for the fireworks one, which is still repeated in popular works on Chinese history. But there's one more: that the Chinese have always despised soldiers, because "good iron is not made into nails, and good men do not become soldiers". In fact, that proverb was probably only current in the 19th and 20th centuries. Soldiering was a very respected profession in most of Chinese history.

There always seemed to be animosity between soldiers and confucian scholars, like references to 'confucian weaklings' (it reminds me of a scene from We Were Soldiers, when one officers asks another about their new commander "he's not one of them academic (sissies) is he?")

The human wave I find the most annoying, followed by firecrackers. Pacifism isn't as annoying, but being weaklings is.

The human wave is definitely the most annoying

I've never heard anyone mention the wobbly Jian as a stereo type. Most people don't see that.

Shaolin Martial arts was just made up and nowadays, no one believes it anyways.

I would say human wave attacks. Everyone thinks that China had nothing but a bunch of peasant conscripts who would madly rush at the enemy when the majority of the soldiers are very highly trained.

Indeed. They're all very tough.
But I'd have to agree with Rolling Wave's logic, even if the wobbly jian, human waves, and firecrackers are almost equally as annoying to me.

Why would the crossbow be so annoying?

The people on this forum has always stated that crossbow is superieur to any other ranged weapon, so why not just let them think that the ancient chinese armies were so good?

whats the wobbly jian?

You can see that in old Kung Fu movies. Those swords made from aluminium and u can only slap someone with it...

whats fake anout shaolin kung fu how was it made up?

Shaolin Kung Fu is not so much "fake". But nowadays, it's not real "Wu Gong", just a bunch of stuff that looks nice in performances.
And also, there's a myth around that all Martial Arts came from Shaolin. Very untrue.
Lang Tao Jin could tell you more.

I vote for gunpowder only being used for fireworks, because it's an outright falsehood that's widely believed. The human wave assaults at least actually did happen, in Korea; the annoying thing is just when Westerners assume that's the only tactic the Chinese ever used.

What I voted is for something concerned with "Centerian are weak in physical constitution" and the like.

Large human waves assault is most stupid.

If we have done that, there wouldn't be much Chinese left. XP

I bet China would be ruled by Mongolia , or the Huns.

The funny thing is many Western wars were fought that way

a big chunk of spearmen ramming into another big chunk of spearmen
hordes of peasants being spurred on by knights to clash into other hordes
mobs of knights charging in straight foreward into one another.

Knights destroying the peasants like hot knife through butter. That's usually the way how bloody medieval wars go. Peasants stands no chance. Poor peasants.... And then people figured out that knights don't kill other knights. Very bad for battles. And then they started fighting like normal.

I would have to say that it's "China looses every war it fought". That's pretty annoying, obviously China's pretty big, so I don't see how that's possible and still keep its size.

Obviously the Chinese only use large waves of humans with no tactics and worthless weapons. Whenever I discuss warfare with Americans, they always say stuff like, Chinese are bugs.

I dont know how they earned this steryotype except for China's obviously large population. China rarely used this tactic (unless you are talking about missle assaults).

That would mean losing 3790 wars


I think the stereotype comes from...

first off, China being a big country, China (in the 18th century and on) being behind the west in technology, China losing the Boxer Rebellion, Opium War, China losing to the 'westernized' Asians (Japan), China's casualty reports in the Korean war, and casualty reports in the Vietnamese war.

and it all goes back to the mongol 'horde' that was 'driven back' by valiant European knights

I believe the greatest misnomer in history is to call the Mongols a horde, especially by the mob peasants and gangboss knights of the dark ages.

The day barbaric Europeans drives back the mongols is the day Japan and China become best friends.

I seem to remember Russia in flames, the Teutonic knights routed and their leader slaughtered, and Poland on the blink of destruction

Actually, the word "horde" comes from "ordo", the Mongol unit of military organisation that was also used before them by the Khitan and Jurchen. Hence the name "The Golden Horde" used by one part of the Mongol Empire.

Eh? Whoever said that? Doesn't everyone know that the Mongols kicked the butts of the Russians, Poles, and Hungarians? I don't know of any other knights the Mongols fought against...



I agree it's a pretty big misnomer, but an understandable one. The Mongols' tremendous maneuvering ability and tendency to appear where least expected always left their victims with the impression that there were a lot more Mongols than there really were. Ergo, constant reports of a "horde" when actually the Mongols were usually outnumbered by their opponents. Historians had to sift through a lot of reports of "hordes" before they realized that the reports were exaggerated.

The one about human wave assaults is really the worse. Mainly because it continues to be used in reference to modern Chinese tactics. People think the Chinese only rely on their numbers, even today as they acquire much better technology and get better training and tactics. Granted, the PLA under Mao was organized mainly to be large and therefore powerful. However, that was a few decades in China's history of millenia.

The Pope said that the Mongols were driven back by God who supported the Europeans.



Mao never used Human Wave tactics. Where did you get that from?

the Korean war

I suggest you read this:

http://centurychina.com/history/faq4.shtml#20

The PLA made it seem like there were hundreds thousands of them when in fact, there was far less. The PLA made most attacks at night to hide from American military superiority. They used scare tactics to shock and awe the UN troops.

The human wave stereotype is usually more broadly just an attack on them relying on numbers.

which kinda makes sense, given that they're up against a force with far superior equipment.

I always thought it strange, like... what was China 'suppost' to do fight the 'fair' way and give up?

The real thing is, the "human wave" stereotype tend to a method of downplaying the real fact that they got strategically beaten in their military manuvering, granted that number do give you a advantage in manuvering, it is still unarguably that you have to be out manuvered and forced into bad positions before the so called "human wave" will beat you.

The KMT went into Machuria with only 2 army, by the time they got annihilated there they had at least 300-400 thousand men there and it fell in a span of a couple of weeks. then why did they sweep the CCP to near destruction early on but then got totally annihilated with a much bigger army? numbers? I think not, the problem is they did not hold the initiative and thus the CCP cut them to piece and took them out one by one, this was a repeating theme in the whole civil war, all the while the KMT and mass firepower superiority and quiet often aren't overmatched much in numbers either the battle of Hua Hai the two sides were roughly equal in numbers but the KMT lost just about every d**** half a million men they had there.

Some personal thoughts...

There are historical records in the United States recording General MacArthur's words that the Chinese soldiers in the Korean War are first class soldiers and splendidly trained...

To be honest, the Western stereotype about Chinese warriors doesn't bother me at all.... since I don't care what they actually think.... I am concerned about the worldwide image of the honour and status of Chinese soldiers of the past... But for some people who do not do their homework and base their opinions on secondary sources and rose-tinted glasses... I don't care what they think becoz I think their opinions are insignificant...

However if anybody really irritates me by insisting on these stereotypes, I will use my eloquence, debating skills and knowledge of Chinese military history to refute and demolish them... 一针见血...

where could I get this quote? I know Macarthur grossly underestimated them, I guess he learned the hard way.

Read the book "The Dragon Strikes" (Presidio Press, 2000) by Korean War veteran Patrick C. Roe, who does a macro review of the progress and development of the Korean War from the top leadership perspective from both sides... It is clear in his book that Patrick Roe, like MacArthur, had a high regard for Chinese soldiers and their performance in the Korean War... The quotes by MacArthur are in his book... Another valuable thing is an appendix attached... on the structure, characteristics and tactics etc of the Chinese Forces...

Dang...you drew blood already, friend Chen...

That might actually reflect more on tactics and coordination, rather than individual training.

Saying that God drove the Mongols back is quite a bit different from saying that the knights did. I suppose that, being Pope, he would tend to see the hand of God in the news of the Khan's death reaching the Mongol army, which was the only thing that stopped the Mongol invasion.

Which Pope are you talking about, by the way?

Take your pick from these Popes of the period (full list at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

179.Gregory IX (1227-41)
180.Celestine IV (1241)
181.Innocent IV (1243-54)
182.Alexander IV (1254-61)
183.Urban IV (1261-64)
184.Clement IV (1265-68)
185.Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186.Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187.Adrian V (1276)
188.John XXI (1276-77)
189.Nicholas III (1277-80)
190.Martin IV (1281-85)
191.Honorius IV (1285-87)
192.Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193.St. Celestine V (1294)
194.Boniface VIII (1294-1303)

And the very same website, this being the official Catholic Encyclopedia version, says:

"Béla IV (1235-70) endeavoured to restore order, above all he tried to carry out the provisions of the Golden Bull, but his efforts were interfered with by an invasion of the Tatars, which nearly ruined the country. After the battle near Muhi (1241), they devastated the entire land; thousands of the inhabitants were massacred, hundreds of churches were plundered and razed to the ground, and six of the dioceses were nearly destroyed. Consequently, when the Tatars left the country, King Béla was obliged to take up the reorganization both of ecclesiastical and secular affairs." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

Nothing there about any fantasized triumph of European chivalry over the Mongols. The Catholic Encyclopedia officially holding the Pope to be infallible on issues of faith and morals, it could hardly say this if the Popes had said the opposite. Ergo, one or more Popes attributing the Mongols' retreat to God (and what good fortune did a Pope ever fail to attribute to God?) hardly supports the meme that the Popes thought the knights turned back the Mongols.

Heres a quote from Bevin Alexander's How Great Generals Win

The pope had also called the mongols the "Hammer of God" sent to punish the wicked and sinners. For a while, they thought the Mongols were really long lost Christians of the East come to destroy Islam, Eastern Orthodox, and all other infidels. That dream kinda evaporated on contact...

Thank you for the reply, Zuo Zongtang. Prowling the Web, I discover some support for Bevin Alexander's statement. This article from Military History shows that, at least in Poland, there exists some belief that the Mongol retreat was due to the casualties the Poles inflicted while being routed at Liegnitz. The reality, of course, is quite different; the Mongols actually suffered almost no casualties at Liegnitz.



I wonder if any similar myth exists in Hungary; it would seem hard to put a positive spin on Mohi.

At any rate, I owe TMPikachu an apology for doubting him.

Would that explain why the entire population of the West still does not approach that of China?

Western warfare pretty much lost its glory after the fall of Rome.

I wouldn't say that. The various specialist polearms, weapons, and armors made when they were emerging into the rennaissance are pretty smart designs, and of course they began developing guns, which eventually exeeds the technology in China.

I think most of western warfare is being displayed as something that you might see in a Western culture movie like "Lord of The Rings" and "Brave Heart". Or even a Cowboy movie where a John Wayne type of hero spends more time winding up their punch and throwing it. ... Most Western Warfare is about force vs. force. ... Something like the irresitable force crashing into the inmovable object. ...

Very little finese. But a lot of force up the middle.

firearms, cannons, explosives and even land mines and flame throwers are all Chinese inventions, not european

i don't know how you could be oblivious to that

I know that.


Europe began developing guns, which eventually exeeds the technology in China. Everybody knows that. I just wanted to point out that Western warfare wasn't all retarded.

oh ok, just making sure. you didn't specify that you said europeans EVENTUALLY beat China in weapons technology