How would the countries of Europe and their armies fare against the armies of China? Let's go with all the current state of the countries before the the introduction of firearms. I don't know how much the longbow would fuck over China, but let's include it during the later years. Let's make a very dubious situation where they're all transported to a continent where they're unfamiliar with and must take advantage of terrain and castle/fort building on their own.
At what time periods does European countries, from Greeks, Romans, to medieval trump over China or vice-versa? At what points does the technology and military tactics of the respective sides overtake the other?
>>1028842
The clear trumping of China by any European force would begin by the late 1700's. It was that kind of army that fought the first Opium War.
Everything else is speculation. The first few European Military encounters between China and Europe were naval fights between the Ming and Portugal and the Dutch. And China won all three (four?) engagements.
>Tunmen
>Xicaowan
>The great raids against the Dutch East India Corporation
>Koxinga's invasion of Formosa.
>>1028842
Okay, well first we need to know what kind of random land, the size of the force, and from what country and era. You said before firearms, do you mean matchlocks or handgonnes or gunpowder in general.
>>1028852
Those naval battles aren't great, they're rather minor and even then the dutch weren't fully committed. Honestly, chinese v. european engagements are very limited save for the Opium war but that's out of the time period. Portugal did great in India and the eastern parts of Africa, but that's stretching it to compare to China
>>1028842
I'm going to postulate that China has bigger armies in general, and could hild a local superiority of numbers in any field short of invading Europe.
Further, the Chinese had more experience in supply and logisitics when it comes to moving vast armies along great distances, probably moreso than European nations of the time, sinply due to the scale of geography.
I may be mistaken, and I know nothing about disparities in weaponry.
>>1028852
>late 1700s
By mid-1700s the superiority would already be entrenched. Indian warmaking capabilities was far ahead of China's and it got BTFO.
China was barely competitive even in the 17th century and could only defeat Westerners under limited circumstances .eg. Koxinga
The Ming were weakass sauce and against a force that resembled a contemporary Western one of its comparable period, Hideyoshi's army, it fared poorly and only won through outlasting its enemy morally.
Most Chinaboos will refuse to accept this, such is their nationalism and brainwashing
>>1028842
>Let's go with all the current state of the countries before the the introduction of firearms.
Well considering when China invented firearms, almost the entirety of Europe would be mud-hut dwelling savages, so china wins.
>>1028990
The Crusades m8, a lot of small nations that managed to do some rather incredible feats, particularly logistically. And yes, Europeans did know how to manage logistics, they had to siege quite often. Pic related. But, since Europeans never really had or needed to travel long distances, they didn't. Still probably could tho
>>1029012
The oldest dated Chinese firearm is the 13th century and the oldest date for gunpowder is the 9th century, so Charlemagne.
>chinaboos in charge of basic information
>>1029009
>The Ming were weakass sauce and against a force that resembled a contemporary Western one of its comparable period, Hideyoshi's army, it fared poorly and only won through outlasting its enemy morally.
>Turnbull shill
An outnumbered Ming force of 38,000~ was able to expel the Japanese from Pyongyang,Kaesong and Hanseong.
A 40,000 strong Japanese army couldn't even rout a cavalry force of 3,000-6,000 and actively avoided facing Ming forces on the battlefield.
>>1029034
There were only 18,000 Japs at Pyongyang and the Ming had 10,000 Korean allies. A selective omission of facts to make China appear more impressive, is a typical Chinaboo tactic on /his/.
>>1029034
Turnbull and Hawley concur that the Ming as shit, and only notorious Chinaboo liar and exaggerator Kenneth Swope thinks otherwise. However, Chinaboos love him because he accepts corrupt Ming battle reports as gospel.
>>1029034
>An outnumbered Ming force of 38,000~ was able to expel the Japanese from Pyongyang,Kaesong and Hanseong.
Mainly because it had the support of Korean guerillas and Yi Sun-sin shitting on Japanese logistics.
Remove Yi Sun-sin and the Ming/Korea combined forces were absolutely pathetic in land battles even when they outnumbered Japanese troops that were hungry, angry at Hideyoshi, and just wanted to fuck off back to home.
>>1028842
They'd lose.Badly. Chinese armies were typically far larger.
In some periods European forces would be better armed, but not enough to make the difference.
>>1028842
Google "war of the heavenly horses". Macedonian style phalanx trumps Chinese army in open battle.
>>1029009
>Indian warmaking capabilities was far ahead of China's and it got BTFO.
>India
In the mid 1700's, India was tearing itself apart. The Marathas toppled the main power of the Mughals, but failed to establish an overall government. Princely states was fighting each other, and no real power existed in the Land.
By the mid 1700's, Qing China was expanding. Mongolia was included to the Chinese Empire. Dzungaria was BTFO. The fierce Gurkhas of Nepal (who fought with "superior Indian warmaking capabilities") were driven away and Tibet was absorbed into the empire. These were the glory days of the Banner Armies.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Great_Campaigns
As for earlier and like I said: speculation. What I can tell you is that even though the late Ming was declining, it was still a force to be reckoned with. European powers in the region like the Spanish here in the Philippines respected Ming authority, and the ones that didn't (Portugal, the Dutch) paid the price.
>The Ming were weakass sauce and against a force that resembled a contemporary Western one of its comparable period, Hideyoshi's army, it fared poorly and only won through outlasting its enemy morally.
The guys who lost the war? Ok.
>>1029090
>"war of the heavenly horses".
>Macedonian style Phalanx
1) The Ferghana Greeks mainly fought like Indo-Iranian Steppe Nomads.
2) Also: they lost that war. Most of the Chinese died marching through the fucking desert. When they arrived in Ferghana, the Dayuan locked themselves up in their capital and the Chinese surrounded them. After some fighting, in panic, the Dayuan killed their king, surrendered, and gave the heavenly horses as payment.
China is not a militarily potent state, for half its history it has been dominated by mongol types.
>>1029146
>Half.
The only Nomad dynasty that established overall rule was the short-lived Mongol one.
The rest just had enclaves created during China's trouble periods like the Northern/Southern Courts.
And the Manchus really do not count as they were a settled people.
>>1029146
The Mongols that conquered and shat on China also shat on Europe. Before then the northern tribes were usually subjugated and paid tribute to China. The only time the northern tribes could briefly rule over China was when the latter screwed itself with mass wars and rebellions.
>>1029160
The many Chinese military defeats which led to the country's partial or full occupation did happen, they are a fact.
>>1029177
>also shat on Europe
literally only russia and the eastern shitholes. Hell, they couldn't even do it consistently, only two battles
>>1029126
They won the Battle of Uzgen. Yes, they did adopt steppe nomad tactics but at this particular battle they maintained a core of hoplite-type troops (ie. the guys in your picture), and rekt the Chinese on the open field. Li Guangli (commanding officer) persuades the emperor to provide him with more men and finally they are able to lay siege to Alexandria Eschate and win the war. Sorry m8.
>>1029181
The many expulsions of Nomad dynasties & invasions was also a fact.
We're talking of domination here. And only the Mongols achieved it.
>>1029187
We have no evidence that they fought Macedonian style. And what I have in my picture is a traditional hoplite. What the Chinese thought of Ferghana infantry, according to the Shiji, was that they fought in the "Fishscale Formation." Which implies shields over spears.
Also the first invasion was defeated because Li Guangli stupidly fought all the petty kings along the way to Ferghana, which seriously ate away at his force.
>>1029193
I think it's fair to assume, being a Greek colony with Greek traditions, religion etc, that maybe, just maybe, they used similar battle tactics.
My original point was that a european style army did in fact defeat the Chinese in open battle.
>>1029009
>Indian warmaking capabilities was far ahead of China's
Just because a couple of Indian princes bought flintlocks doesn't put India ahead of China. The mainstay firearm was the Banduk Toradar (Matchlock Musket) still. Which puts them at the same level as China.
Also what >>1029112 says. The BTFO of India was largely due to internal chaos. There was no Grand European Invasion of any sort and European rule over India was largely a process that took two centuries with heavy reliance on local support.
>>1029189
If it hadn't been for others, the Japanese would still be in China, the Chinese couldn't drive them out.
>>1029201
>I think it's fair to assume, being a Greek colony with Greek traditions, religion etc, that maybe, just maybe, they used similar battle tactics.
Its not really.
Greek Kingdoms in Central had to seriously adapt to local warfare or die. And adapt they did
In fact, the Shiji tells us that the war of the heavenly horses happened when the Dayuan Greeks were in the process of being overrun by the Yuezhi. Multiple cities in Ferghana have fallen already, and Marakanda and Eschate were the few ones left.
>>1029214
>Bringing the Second Sino-Japanese War into this.
You mean the invasion that led to a stalemate and broke Japan's economy even before the Embargo happened?
>>1029126
> Most of the Chinese died marching through the fucking desert. When they arrived in Ferghana, the Dayuan locked themselves up in their capital and the Chinese surrounded them. After some fighting, in panic, the Dayuan killed their king, surrendered, and gave the heavenly horses as payment.
Another typical Chinaboo misrepresentation. There were two expeditions and the first one failed. The Chinaboos on /his/ never cease to manipulate facts in a way most flattering to their position.
>>1029218
Yes, the one that killed 10 million chinese and was entered by comrade Stalin and a bomb
>>1029225
>Comrade Stalin
Spotted the Vatnik.
>>1029216
>and adapt they did
citation needed.
"Fishscale formation" implies something more akin to to a shield-wall/phalanx than to tradtional horse archer tactics.
They lived in towns and cities. They didn't fully adopt steppe nomad battle tactics for the same reason the Chinese didn't.
>>1029225
>RUSSIA ENDED WWII ON BOTH FRONTS!!!1!
Fuck off. The Pacific was USA's game.
>>1029237
>"Fishscale formation" implies something more akin to to a shield-wall/phalanx than to tradtional horse archer tactics.
Can't you read? I was speaking of the Ferghana Infantry. Not the whole army. The infantry.
Literally Crossbow spam their way to victory
>>1029246
Which only confirms my earlier point
>>1029187
"They maintained a core of hoplite-type troops" who fought in, you guessed it, something that can be resemble a "Fishscale formation"
Is it really so hard to accept that in 200 years since their foundation, they maintained Greek traditions, including battle tactics. Just as Australians and americans maintain some aspects of english culture today in an infinitely more connected and diverse world. Of course war has changed a lot in the last 200 years but back then it hadn't.
Just a bit of supposition.
>>1029263
Yes its quite hard. Because the nearby Greco-Baktrian Kingdom overhauled their military so much to the point that it resembled local forces, just wearing bits of Greek armor.
And that was the biggest collection of Greeks in the region.
>>1029263
'something that resembles a '"fishscale formation'"*
>>1029268
At the end of the day. A shield and a spear is most effectively used in a phalanx formation. Ergo, it is somewhat safe to assume that, being equipped as such, they fought as such.
>>1029277
Eh fair enough. But I'm still not calling it Macedonian Pike Formation.
This thread shouldve ended here >>1028852
China VS. Rome or Medieval Europe is the Civilizational Equivalent of Knight VS. Samurai arguments.
>>1028842
The Abbasids beat the Chinese at Talas and the Abbasids were pretty much evenly matched with the Byzantines, so extrapolate from that
>>1028842
Well since neither had sufficient force projection until recently i´d say its a tie.
>>1029998
PS, Europeans had sort of achieved naval supremacy over native Junks around 1600 AD. From that point on China hired Dutch and Portuguese to make cast iron cannons and around 1630 a Chinese catholic Portuguese speaking pirate who worked with the Dutch built a small fleet of western style warships, only the Dutch then burned those while they were in the harbor. After that he managed to defeat them with fireships anyways and no naval modernization was attempted for another century or two.
>>1029971
Funny you mentioned Talas.
Both Byzantines and Chinese suffered great defeats due to the treachery of Turkic allies.
>>1029971
Wasn't Talas lost more due to mercenaries changing sides than by military skill?
>>1029225
>Stalin ended the Pacific Theater
huh, that's strange. I could have sworn they barely participated in that.
>>1029268
>Yes its quite hard. Because the nearby Greco-Baktrian Kingdom overhauled their military so much to the point that it resembled local forces, just wearing bits of Greek armor.
Anon, they still had hoplites when they invaded fucking india.
Smoke less crack.
>>1029068
Why would you even rely on secondary English sources? Turnbull and Hawley has no mastery of Classical Chinese while Swope's conclusions are unsound.
>>1029074
Nice attempt to deflect,the Japanese deployed more men than the Chinese.
This doesn't change the fact that the Japanese had issues dealing with Ming cavalry despite vastly outnumbering them.
>>1029080
Yi Sunshin was important but not as important as you make him out to be.
Kato Kiyomasa was still able to campaign in Hamgyong,Ulsan/Sacheon/Suncheon were supplied even towards the end of the war and Japanese were able to ferry their force back and forth.
Go read the《經略復國要編》 and tell me the Ming didn't struggle with logistics.
