Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Genivaria]

Jesus Christ my roommate is listening to the dumbest fuckin' history podcast. This guy is making the argument that Middle Eastern/Central Asians militaries haven't been as good as Western armies starting at around 1750.

It took him a half hour of weird boxing analogies and anecdotes about Roman generals to say "the Ottoman, Russian, and British Empires had guns."

Well I don't know about 'better' but the Crusades didn't exactly favor the Crusaders.
Then again the whole 'home advantage' thing comes into play.

During Feudalism I could see the majority of Muslim and Christian armies being somewhere around the same level as far as quality goes, with some variation of course.

[Conserative Morality]

Twice the population of the Tang which held around a third of the population of the world? Only if you go into the realm of romaboo fiction where two thirds of the world population would have to fall within it's borders in order to substantiate. Realistically Tang's peak would have around 80 million and Rome at it's peak around 70, which would have been around the quarter of the world at it's time.

I'd always heard 50 million for the Tang so I'll cede to you on that point, but Rome at its peak was at 100 million.

In terms of integration of territories Rome would lag considerably behind the tang, while they would hold administrations above Egypt, Carthage, areas which they would control, but not nearly act as integrated as the Italian peninsula to the empire, whereas Tang arguably held a considerably larger core despite it's infamous attempts at nomadic integration and still significant regional distinctions.

The Sinicization of South China was far from complete during the Tang dynasty, not to mention the not insignificant amount of its population who were Zhuang, Uyghur, Xianbei, and Miao.

Economically, contrasted by even the Han and Qin, Tang enjoyed a surplus labour which manifested itself in it's labour which is pretty significant historically for China, there's a good reason why most consider Tang the apex of their power. While Rome would enjoy by it's culture a more significant investments in monuments, including far more impressive engineering even in contrast to say the massive daiming palace, the major cities of Tang, though in good part because of the work of the Qin and Han prior, were significantly more impressive than European counterparts.

I did mention it specifically in regards to the military, and while I would argue Rome's greatest military accomplishments was at a time prior to when it's army size peaked, the armies between Rome and Tang could not be more distinct. While Rome would have an edge in terms of heavy infantry, Tang armies placed significantly more weight on cavalry and ranged weapons. Between the Han, Song and Tang, the Tang cavalry. (Though largely celebrated of such by Tang Taizong's exploits) is considered pretty much the high point, certainly numerically. Han generally had more emphasis on armour whereas the Tang cavalry was medium, but still in far greater numbers than roman armies.

Though Rome got the worst of asian warfare in the battle of Carrhae. Those where some good times.

Carrhae - you mean when the only way the Parthians could win was by extreme incompetence on the Roman side?

Rome knew how to deal with cavalry-heavy forces and defeated them regularly. The Parthian shot was near-useless against Roman infantry except as a harassing tactic, and Chinese crossbows were infamously even weaker than that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Twice the population of the Tang which held around a third of the population of the world? Only if you go into the realm of romaboo fiction where two thirds of the world population would have to fall within it's borders in order to substantiate. Realistically Tang's peak would have around 80 million and Rome at it's peak around 70, which would have been around the quarter of the world at it's time.

I'd always heard 50 million for the Tang so I'll cede to you on that point, but Rome at its peak was at 100 million.

In terms of integration of territories Rome would lag considerably behind the tang, while they would hold administrations above Egypt, Carthage, areas which they would control, but not nearly act as integrated as the Italian peninsula to the empire, whereas Tang arguably held a considerably larger core despite it's infamous attempts at nomadic integration and still significant regional distinctions.

The Sinicization of South China was far from complete during the Tang dynasty, not to mention the not insignificant amount of its population who were Zhuang, Uyghur, Xianbei, and Miao.

Economically, contrasted by even the Han and Qin, Tang enjoyed a surplus labour which manifested itself in it's labour which is pretty significant historically for China, there's a good reason why most consider Tang the apex of their power. While Rome would enjoy by it's culture a more significant investments in monuments, including far more impressive engineering even in contrast to say the massive daiming palace, the major cities of Tang, though in good part because of the work of the Qin and Han prior, were significantly more impressive than European counterparts.

I did mention it specifically in regards to the military, and while I would argue Rome's greatest military accomplishments was at a time prior to when it's army size peaked, the armies between Rome and Tang could not be more distinct. While Rome would have an edge in terms of heavy infantry, Tang armies placed significantly more weight on cavalry and ranged weapons. Between the Han, Song and Tang, the Tang cavalry. (Though largely celebrated of such by Tang Taizong's exploits) is considered pretty much the high point, certainly numerically. Han generally had more emphasis on armour whereas the Tang cavalry was medium, but still in far greater numbers than roman armies.

Though Rome got the worst of asian warfare in the battle of Carrhae. Those where some good times.

Carrhae - you mean when the only way the Parthians could win was by extreme incompetence on the Roman side?

Rome knew how to deal with cavalry-heavy forces and defeated them regularly. The Parthian shot was near-useless against Roman infantry except as a harassing tactic, and Chinese crossbows were infamously even weaker than that.

That's a fairly low estimate for the Tang, and a very high estimate for Rome. I've always heard 50-100 million for Rome, with 70 & 80 million being the numbers I've heard the most, with 80 million in the Tang Dynasty at its height.

[Conserative Morality]

That's a fairly low estimate for the Tang, and a very high estimate for Rome. I've always heard 50-100 million for Rome, with 70 & 80 million being the numbers I've heard the most, with 80 million in the Tang Dynasty at its height.

I've heard high estimates of 120 million for Rome at its peak, though I'm inclined to think lower than that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's a fairly low estimate for the Tang, and a very high estimate for Rome. I've always heard 50-100 million for Rome, with 70 & 80 million being the numbers I've heard the most, with 80 million in the Tang Dynasty at its height.

I've heard high estimates of 120 million for Rome at its peak, though I'm inclined to think lower than that.

Where did you hear an estimate that high?

[Herskerstad]

I'd always heard 50 million for the Tang so I'll cede to you on that point, but Rome at its peak was at 100 million.

Ancient census logistics are always a bit of a hard thing to nail down, and while this is pre-song population exploition China, it would still be a pretty hefty amount. Rome's estimations go all the way from the very low estimate of 40 million to the pie in the sky, Latin equivalent of we wuz kaingz estimate of 140. Conservativeish estimates hold it at 70. The material I had on it had Tang as high as 100 which is unrealistic, but I would argue less realistic that Rome reached so high. This is generally an age where that would correspond to almost 40% of the world's population.Though a significant chunk of that would be because of Egypt which sure, while it was more integrated by Octavian, was far from Roman.

The Sinicization of South China was far from complete during the Tang dynasty, not to mention the not insignificant amount of its population who were Zhuang, Uyghur, Xianbei, and Miao.

Correct, this is still the era where the north and then most populous area was considered the true core of China, and while the very southeast at least early on in tang had a nominal vassalage, it did integrate fully into China. Though it was the nomadic regions which always was the least integrated even when they fell within the borders, that would be true for any dynasty aside from the minority dynasties themselves and they would hold considerably less population overall. All this taken into account, it's not nearly the same patchwork as Rome would have been with it's countless systems and degrees of autonomy despite being far from unified in a modern sense, though for an empire at it's age it was pretty compact.

Carrhae - you mean when the only way the Parthians could win was by extreme incompetence on the Roman side?

Rome knew how to deal with cavalry-heavy forces and defeated them regularly. The Parthian shot was near-useless against Roman infantry except as a harassing tactic, and Chinese crossbows were infamously even weaker than that.

Tang dynasty was a lot more invested into some pretty impressive composite bows for it's era which is where the real problem of comparing them go, as they would generate considerably more force than say the Persian equivalent which already gave Romans enough of a problem. Not to mention that these were not the typical bow forces where you would expect them to expend their ammunition within an hour, but had wagon trains of ammunition as east asian warfare was considerably slower for the most part. It's use was for the most part to discourage the cavalry forces which were dominant on the battlefield at a time, or to soften up infantry for those charges.

[Sanctissima]

That's a fairly low estimate for the Tang, and a very high estimate for Rome. I've always heard 50-100 million for Rome, with 70 & 80 million being the numbers I've heard the most, with 80 million in the Tang Dynasty at its height.

I've heard high estimates of 120 million for Rome at its peak, though I'm inclined to think lower than that.

That's rather unlikely. At its height, even the city of Rome itself barely surpassed a population of a million people. Considering how most other major urban population centers of the empire rarely exceeded 200,000 inhabitants, I'd say 70-80 million is the most reasonable population estimate for the empire, with even estimates as high as 90 million pushing the envelope.

[Conserative Morality]

Where did you hear an estimate that high?

Damned if I can remember tbh.

[The East Marches II]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Not as disgusting as posting other people's OC on /his/ and claiming it as your own.

[The East Marches II]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Not as disgusting as posting other people's OC on /his/ and claiming it as your own.

That's true

Also not as disgusting as Voltaire

[Northern Davincia]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Weren't the Brits the greatest barbarians of all?

[The Liberated Territories]

Not as disgusting as posting other people's OC on /his/ and claiming it as your own.

That's true

Also not as disgusting as Voltaire

How dare you criticize the greatest French thinker since Robespierre?

[The Liberated Territories]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Weren't the Brits the greatest barbarians of all?

Britain belongs to the Romans, not the Celts or Anglo-Saxons.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's true

Also not as disgusting as Voltaire

How dare you criticize the greatest French thinker since Robespierre?

Voltaire was before Robespierre.

[The Liberated Territories]

How dare you criticize the greatest French thinker since Robespierre?

Voltaire was before Robespierre.

details~~~

(and I'm being tongue in cheek though. Robespierre was a bastard, but Voltaire is underrated.)

[Sanctissima]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Weren't the Brits the greatest barbarians of all?

Yes.

Remember Rhodesia.

Perfidious Albion betrays all, even its own children.

The Romans did literally nothing wrong by pre-emptively invading the island. They knew what it would become.

[The East Marches II]

This is your daily reminder that Dan Carlin is a hack and the Gauls had it fucking coming.

>feeling pity for the barbarians

Absolutely disgusting

Weren't the Brits the greatest barbarians of all?

That's the Scots. That's why they built a big beautiful wall. Also why Edward the First did nothing wrong. I'm waiting for the inevitable Old Tyrannia response to this.

That's true

Also not as disgusting as Voltaire

How dare you criticize the greatest French thinker since Robespierre?

>Robesperg
>Great thinker

Into the trash your opinion goes. Voltaire was merely a real life shit poster before it was cool. His only achievement was a great history of Charles XII. I am aware you got the timing wrong but no big deal before I get bullied for not calling it out.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

That's the Scots. That's why they built a big beautiful wall. Also why Edward the First did nothing wrong. I'm waiting for the inevitable Old Tyrannia response to this.

Reminder that Edward the First was the ideal king!

[The East Marches II]

That's the Scots. That's why they built a big beautiful wall. Also why Edward the First did nothing wrong. I'm waiting for the inevitable Old Tyrannia response to this.

Reminder that Edward the First was the ideal king!

He really was tbh

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Reminder that Edward the First was the ideal king!

He really was tbh

>tfw he makes good legal reforms
>tfw he was frightened and respected
>tfw he was faithful and loved both of his wives

Agreed.

[Conserative Morality]

That's the Scots. That's why they built a big beautiful wall. Also why Edward the First did nothing wrong. I'm waiting for the inevitable Old Tyrannia response to this.

Reminder that Edward the First was the ideal king!

>> not the Lionheart

do not want

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Reminder that Edward the First was the ideal king!

>> not the Lionheart

do not want

>lionheart
>rather than John

If you'd chosen John you'd have some credibility, but you chose Lionheart. Get out of here you Robinhood fundie!!!

[Herskerstad]

That's true

Also not as disgusting as Voltaire

How dare you criticize the greatest French thinker since Robespierre?

Robespierre is such a budget wannabe dictator.

[Conserative Morality]

>lionheart
>rather than John

If you'd chosen John you'd have some credibility, but you chose Lionheart. Get out of here you Robinhood fundy!!!

>> choosing the softsword

You probably believe in wooden walls on the channel instead of MEN on the GROUND