Europe and asia

let me rephrase my question, tell me is there ANY need to develope a weapon more powerful then a nuclear missle?
 
of course. then you can have larger coverage and being able to knock hardened silos which nukes now can't.

And again, china had fought a lot of other minor races which were also very capable in terms of military power and have threatened china seriously. Therefore, ancient china also need better military technology. And this post is about europe being at least not weaker than asia during the medieval ages and the renaissance. Not needs for armies.
 
DSJ, stop the double posting at once!!

I've edited a couple of your posts now.

If you have something else to add to your posts then please use the edit button, do not post a new one after one of your own replies!!
 
dsj said:
...of course. then you can have larger coverage and being able to knock hardened silos which nukes now can't...
Click to expand...


now i just have to ask this...what weapon do you envision that would be more powerful than a thermo-nuclear device?

and as to the answer to silos...if you can use the nuke to barely penetrate the ground within a certain number of feet (say 800 feet in proximity) the sub-ground burst shock will wreck the delicate missile in its silo, and possibly collapse the tube. Unfortunately, by the time the missile reaches the silo, the enemy with its over the horizon radar and satillite system has already seen your missile coming, and has already launched it right back at you. So really all you get is an empty silo. So i guess it had better be some sort of stealth missile to get past all the darn radars and such for a first strike

And this post is about europe being at least not weaker than asia during the medieval ages and the renaissance? sounds like fun. :D
 
dsj said:
The reason that europe was better was because of their advanced military technology and democratic system.
Click to expand...

A lot of europen military technology was from the east such as the trebeuchet and gunpowder and the swords in europe were awful compard to asian swords as the broadswords in europe more battered an opponent to death rather than cut them like the samurai etc.
 
Mark Conley said:
dsj said:
...of course. then you can have larger coverage and being able to knock hardened silos which nukes now can't...
Click to expand...


now i just have to ask this...what weapon do you envision that would be more powerful than a thermo-nuclear device?

and as to the answer to silos...if you can use the nuke to barely penetrate the ground within a certain number of feet (say 800 feet in proximity) the sub-ground burst shock will wreck the delicate missile in its silo, and possibly collapse the tube. Unfortunately, by the time the missile reaches the silo, the enemy with its over the horizon radar and satillite system has already seen your missile coming, and has already launched it right back at you. So really all you get is an empty silo. So i guess it had better be some sort of stealth missile to get past all the darn radars and such for a first strike

And this post is about europe being at least not weaker than asia during the medieval ages and the renaissance? sounds like fun. :D
Click to expand...
Glad you started to reply again. My point was that there are always needs to be better in military technology. There are always competetors and even if not at the moment there is a natural flow or tendency to advance.
 
skywalker said:
dsj said:
The reason that europe was better was because of their advanced military technology and democratic system.
Click to expand...

A lot of europen military technology was from the east such as the trebeuchet and gunpowder and the swords in europe were awful compard to asian swords as the broadswords in europe more battered an opponent to death rather than cut them like the samurai etc.
Click to expand...
but who developed them? Many U.S equipments were invented in britian like the radar but does that mean the united states is technologically inferior to britian? Europe was able to conquer large areas of islamic territories at the heart of the islamic world. That shows their military power that they were not weaker. Europe was capable of armouring extremely large amounts of their soldiers which other cultures could not. Dosen't matter who had it first. And europe did have many inventions too. You are pointing single facts that dose not reprsent their strength. Europe have large quantites of high quality troops and a strong stable ecnonmy as a back supporter for wars,
 
i'm afraid thats your last back to back post dsj...one more, and we'll have to see what Redleg says...any more back to back found on any forum tonite will result in me locking every single one of your posts until i get the word from Redleg on what to do with you...

i'm very sorry that you cant even obey the forum administrator when he tells you to stop doing an action. i have read your post below: it doesnt matter what is enclosed in the quotes, the back to back posting was to stop. and he posted this right in your topic. and pleading that you are a chinese canadian history scholar ain't going to be an excuse.

edit: okay, so we wont wait for another back to back. thats a cute little troll side slip there dsj. lets see what happens when you lose a few bucks.

and , gee i dont even think ill curse about it. its done.
 
Mark Conley said:
i'm afraid thats your last back to back post dsj...one more, and we'll have to see what Redleg says...any more back to back found on any forum tonite will result in me locking every single one of your posts until i get the word from Redleg on what to do with you...

i'm very sorry that you cant even obey the forum administrator when he tells you to stop doing and action. and his post is in the topic. and pleading that you are a chinese canadian history scholar ain't going to be an excuse.
Click to expand...
But look at his edits. He didn't edit the double posts that quotes two people's posts each! He only edited the ones that dosen't have quotes on them. Take a look before you start talking. And there is no need for me to plead to anyone here!
 
I didn't edit all of your posts because there were too many of them...

DSJ has now been temporary banned, because he has failed too many times to follow the forum rules and the warnings from me and the mods...

It does NOT have anything to do with the content of his posts!!

I'll unlock this post now, so stay on topic from now on...

Please! :)
 
dsj said:
skywalker said:
dsj said:
The reason that europe was better was because of their advanced military technology and democratic system.
Click to expand...

A lot of europen military technology was from the east such as the trebeuchet and gunpowder and the swords in europe were awful compard to asian swords as the broadswords in europe more battered an opponent to death rather than cut them like the samurai etc.
Click to expand...

but who developed them?
They developed them independently! Im not sure what your trying to say here, as if you are saying that europeans invented the weapons and then the asians took them then i cant see that being right as china had a civilized society with weapons before contact with europeans
Many U.S equipments were invented in britian like the radar but does that mean the united states is technologically inferior to britian? Europe was able to conquer large areas of islamic territories at the heart of the islamic world.
The ottoman turks controlled the balkans in europe for centuries and western nations did fight against them and could not drive them out!


That shows their military power that they were not weaker.
No they were not weaker but they were not stronger either as the muslims did drive them out after each crusade!

Europe was capable of armouring extremely large amounts of their soldiers which other cultures could not.
Other cultures might not needed to of! Maybe asian countries could equip large amounts of troops but they didnt have to! we dont know!

Doesn't matter who had it first. And europe did have many inventions too. You are pointing single facts that dose not reprsent their strength. Europe have large quantities of high quality troops and a strong stable economy as a back supporter for wars

You havent pointed out any things that show that europe was a stronger society! youve pointed out where europe won against asian armys but not the fact they did lose as well! Europe had large amounts of high quality troops because there have been wars in europe continuosly for the last 1000yrs and more! if china was constantly at war then they to would have large amounts of high quality troops because they would need them! The economy of european nations has always fluctuated the english civil war was partly started by the fact that the taxes were so high!
Click to expand...
 
Truth be told, its probably a difficult comparison between the Middle East and Europe after you factor everything into it. But lets be straight about a few things. The Christian/European/Western dominance over everything the Meditteranean touched was brought to a crashing halt by Arabic armies who overwhelmed North Africa, Spain, Palestine/Israel and modern day Turkey. The Byzantine Empire was the impassable bottleneck in the East, and Charles Martel pulled off a brilliant victory at Tours to help stop the Arabic incursions into the Western European countries. So the West starts off by getting its butt kicked, but managing to slow down and finally stop the flood.

From there, things settled into a long stalemate. The Crusades worked briefly at taking back tiny portions of what the West had lost, but they couldn't hold them for long. Every Crusade after the First was a failure.

The momentum reverses direction as Spain pushes the Moors out. But on the other side of Europe, things were quite the opposite. The Ottomans hit the scene, what's left of the Byzantine Empire gets swallowed bit by bit until they take Constantinople in 1494. The Ottomans also get pretty far into Europe before their getting beaten near Vienna. Then things settle into another stalemate of sorts. So at that point, Europe loses one large penninsula and gains another.

As the Renaissance kicks in, Europe advances greatly and accomplishes big things. Their technology surpasses the Far East obviously, but the Middle East copies numerous advances and is by no means left in the dust. During this time period, the Ottomans and Russians go at it repeatedly, with the Russians eventually pushing the Turks southward.

The Industrial Revolution is the most obvious defining point at which West runs away with it. I don't see one side having dramatically outdone the other before then.

As for Europe "stopping" the Mongols, you need to do more research about that. There were reasons the Mongols left, and it had nothing to do with having been beaten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top