If Asians are so smart, how come they've hardly invented anything or progressed in science compared to Europeans, especially considering they&#03...

If Asians are so smart, how come they've hardly invented anything or progressed in science compared to Europeans, especially considering they've had a much greater population than Europe throughout history? It seems like even the few notable inventions they have, such as the compass and gunpowder, were not fully exploited by them and only Europeans realized the full potential of these technologies.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because of confucian conformity

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Crippled by moronic ideologies. If they were abrahamics rather than daoists they would sparked an industrial revolution in the Song Dynasty at the latest.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Americans started this to dab on blacks. They created the concept of "model minority" and used Asians who immigrated there as a way to shame them.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Read Spengler

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    china was ahead of europe in terms of inventions, mechanization, science and learning until around the time of the mongol invasions. china continued to exist after mongols but this era marks the turning point of chinese civilization into a dark age.
    song china (the dynasty before the mongol yuan dynasty) was by far the most advanced dynasty and the peak of medieval chinese civilization. after kaifeng was captured by the jin in 1127 its library was burned down and lot of knowledge was lost, but song also lost access to vast coal deposits in the north (coal deposits were critical to britain leading the industrial revolution). this was an era with prolific inventions like the mechanical clock, accurate solar calendar, canal locks, paddle wheel ships, and the use of coal. another good indicator is the size of palaces built, they peaked around the northern song and got smaller since. the forbidden city, built in the 1400s during the ming dynasty is a masterpiece of engineering, it never floods even when the rest of beijing does. no palace built in the qing matches it in the scope of engineering excellence. in fact the lei family which built the qing's summer palace found that many techniques were already lost by their time.
    it would be inaccurate to portray chinese history as a constant unchanging one of repeated cycles of collapse and rebirth. in reality it was getting more and more advanced until the jurchen and then the mongol conquests. since then it was on a steady path downhill until it ran aground into the modern era. this is actually the orthodox view in japan, and many of them consider traditional chinese civilization to have died with the song.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      China's real "dark age" is the later Tang dynasty, when the literary and historical tradition dries up and we know relatively little about what happened. After that, the sourcing just gets better and better.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > If Asians are so smart

    They aren’t.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Go read Needham's Science and Civilization in China, all volumes of it, and recant your foolishness.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >read that damn book a white guy wrote about us, gweilo. It showed how great we were

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ever wonder why a genius polymath decided to dedicate his life to studying Chinese scientific and engineering accomplishment? No?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He is a weeb. Is Japan more advanced than America if i spent my life reading Naruto n shit?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No no no. Don't you dare compare the weeb's autistic obsession with otaku culture to the cultivated man of letter's appreciation for China. These two do not exist on the same level. Chinese is the for the man of culture. Japanese is for the bodypillow cuddling manbaby. Do not ever compare these two.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Okay Chang

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They lack the Faustian Spirit. Whites have the goldilocks zone of intelligence and testosterone that creates more geniuses at the right tail.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pigboy cope. China is superior. China superior history, technology, intelligence. While the pigman civilization is crumbling due to woman power and black man power and immigrants, China is rising and will soon dominate entire world. All technology, science, and manufacturing come from China. We will do gene editing to make ourselves even more superior while pigmen and pigladies cry about "eugenics".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not a single invention in 5000 years of history. I wonder why...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You were replying to a moronic bait post, but somehow you managed to be even more stupid.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What did the Chinese ever invent?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

            All these "inventions" had to be discovered and listed by white men. Name one invention the white man didn't already have themselves.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >All these "inventions" had to be discovered and listed by white men
            lol do you believe this

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > Do you believe this
            Reality?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            White men couldn't even discover their fathers. Their fathers leave their mothers, haha.
            Chinese made chemistry, biology, math. What did white make? Shrimp on the barbie, haha.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Name one invention the white man didn't already have themselves.
            Gunpowder

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            they had that

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            just stop. you've been btfo enough times

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Europeans invented gunpowder though, stop lying

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Only if you ignore every evidence saying otherwise like the baconschizo did

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better anon

            absolute seething from chinkcels. Europeans invented it first, chinks stole it then falsely claimed they retroactively invented it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Europeans invented it first, chinks stole it then falsely claimed they retroactively invented it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinks, arabs, and historians claimed that yeah.

            >we are dealing with people that claim they invented trains, computers etc.
            again we're talking about china in this thread not india

            this is the citation used on the wiki article moron. A pop kung fu magazine

            https://web.archive.org/web/20110831100857/http://www.tao-yin.com/wai-jia/revolte_boxeurs_1.html

            this is what boxers actually used

            https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/u6x6v/very_long_barreled_60_or_more_chinese_jingal_wall/

            https://www.pvoller.net/new_stamps/germany/china/china-private.php

            >In sharp contrast to the image above, the Boxers were generally poorly equipped, especially during the initial stages when they armed themselves with anything that was at hand, such as sticks and farm implements. Later, after the Chinese Army intervened they were better supplied, now having access to rifles. Although poorly armed their tactics were quite successful, relying to a large extent on ambushes to attack and wear down their better equipped enemy.

            tell me why does the date of Bacon inventing gunpowder in ~1240 then the date of Marco Polo travelling to China, 1270s. Bringing gunpowder knowledge with him. Then most of the physical evidence for chinese guns exists after 1280s. Ring true.
            Curious, why does it seem like Bacon invented gunpowder, gave it to the Vatican, who gave it to Polo who took it with him to China and demonstrated its use.
            Oh thats because its actually the history.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese used rockets, fire arrows, fire lances and gunpowder bombs during the song dynasty centuries before Roger bacon

            there are actual remains of bombs moron

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb#History

            also why hasn't a single cannon be found in Europe before the one in Heilongjiang?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >also why hasn't a single cannon be found in Europe before the one in Heilongjiang?
            because they never had it. first use of guns was mid 14th century europe

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            well the earliest canons made in europe were made out of wood.
            They sawed down a tree trunk, bored a hole, braced it with iron bands maybe. Filled it with gun powder and put a cannonball in it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So...any physical evidence?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Trees with holes in them? Dumbass.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            as the myth goes the tree cannons blew up, so they were disposable

            So...europeans didn't have a physical evidence of gunpowder before Asia?
            Shouldn't this disprove the entirety of rogerbaconschizo's spiel?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why'd people be drilling holes in trees and loading balls in them without gunpowder, butthole?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            as the myth goes the tree cannons blew up, so they were disposable

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            see

            >This is before China had it. China basically gets gunpowder after Polo visited them.
            Marco Polo visited China during the Yuan dynasty, China had gunpowder weapons during the Song dynasty. You are just embarrassing yourself by exposing how clueless you are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >gunpowder weapons
            Fire on a stick isn't a gunpowder weapon, chang.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinks, arabs, and historians claimed that yeah.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They actually didn't. The powder is Persian and guns are European.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sure it is, Alireza Guderian.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >We will do gene editing to make ourselves even more superior
        clueless mexican detected. its been made criminal, and tbh there is a considerable taboo about it and the neo-confucian turn poo bear is even more hostile to it.

        Ironically china will end up leading the world in AI (because they won't give a shit if it says racist stuff), while america will lead the world in eugenic tailoring. Why america? Because we have extremely lax laws on surrogacy, embryonic research, etc so homosexuals can buy children (which they promise they wont try to frick).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you talk like you will benefit from any of that. Your gonna be first on the chopping block bud

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not a single argument presented for why Chinamen have fewer geniuses and innovations per capita than whites.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    we used to kill each other in wars all the time, once the peasants felt like the current ruler lost the mandate of heaven at least 20 million would get killed in the incoming war.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    China is good at working hard like robots but incapable of truly thinking innovatively.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      what's interesting is many people say chinese students are good at math/stem, but they can't think creatively and excel at memorization. if you knew anything about the world you would know these are contradictory. math is the least memory intensive subject, every math question is about applying thinking skills to solve problems. social sciences and humanities e.g. psychology is all about memorizing arbitrary facts and theories.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They're good at exams, not at math research. Math exams are about memorization. Math research is not. Just look at Chinese contributions to math versus white contributions. Since this is math, poverty can't be an excuse either.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Math exams are about memorization
          no they aren't. you can't memorize a proof, and if you do that means you cheated and saw the question ahead of time
          also china leads the world in quality research papers in many fields now. just look at your local university, probably full of chinese and iranian grad students and profs

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Leads the world in quality research papers
            If we're talking about math or CS, then definitely not. Not in physics either.
            Have you actually examined their output or are you just trying to be nice to them?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            these are objective numbers based on things like no. of citations, as opposed to your personal feelings on the matter

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If you knew anything about basic reading comprehension, you would have addressed my point head on. Instead, you try to shame me for not "getting to know the world", i.e. your depressing dystopia. Do I really want to " learn" about how dirty your streets are, or how cruel life is for the average person there? No thanks

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Are you talking about the West or China?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Gaslight Nation

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Crushing rebellion is cruelty? Seen enough of that in Europe during COVID.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >If Asians are so smart, how come they've hardly invented anything or progressed in science compared to Europeans
    Both aren't monoliths you identity-less new worlder.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Name one invention Europeans already didn't have. What did we get from the Chinese exactly?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What did we get from the Chinese exactly?
        paper, printing, gunpowder, guns, rockets, compass, standardized testing

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not gunpowder.
          >Based on these Taoist texts, the invention of gunpowder by Chinese alchemists was likely an accidental byproduct from experiments seeking to create the elixir of life.
          Just another weeb.
          >Professor Kenneth Warren Chase credits the Mongols for introducing into Europe gunpowder and its associated weaponry. However, there is no clear route of transmission
          Also, the Chinese supposedly invented their ooga-booga chemical mixes around the 1200s. Europe on the other hand
          >The earliest Western accounts of gunpowder appears in texts written by English philosopher Roger Bacon in 1267 called Opus Majus and Opus Tertium.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >>The earliest Western accounts of gunpowder appears in texts written by English philosopher Roger Bacon in 1267 called Opus Majus and Opus Tertium.
            by then the mongols had already sacked kiev and baghdad, of course it had reached europe. china had gunpowder weapons in the 11th century. the rockets used by china reached india and from there the british discovered them and used them as the basis for the design of the congrieve rocket. which is precisely the "rocket's red glare" mentioned by americans in their national anthem

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are we talking about rockets or gunpowder now? The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder. They came up with a mix that was flammable for entirely different reasons. There's also no link between European and Chinese gunpowder.
            European gunpowder was actually designed for warfare. For the Chinese, it was an accident:
            >Some have heated together sulfur, realgar and saltpeter with honey; smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house where they were working burned down.

            these are objective numbers based on things like no. of citations, as opposed to your personal feelings on the matter

            Chinese cite other Chinese. They also cite a lot more people per paper.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The earliest known recorded recipes for gunpowder were written by Zeng Gongliang, Ding Du and Yang Weide in the Wujing Zongyao, a military manuscript compiled in 1044 during the Song Dynasty (960–1279). Its gunpowder formulas describe the use of incendiary bombs launched from catapults, thrown down from defensive walls, or lowered down the wall by use of iron chains operated by a swape lever.[27][28][29] Bombs launched from trebuchet catapults mounted on forecastles of naval ships ensured the victory of Song over Jin forces at the Battle of Caishi in 1161
            try again
            >Chinese cite other Chinese
            they are cited in other universities too dumb frick

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >gunpowder
            They "invented" a sticky flammable substance that they used to set their rocks on fire. Europeans discovered the gunpowder we actually use in... you know, guns?
            >citations
            https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23302
            Why are you so intent on defending the Chinese? It's fine if they have zero civilizational contributions. That's something they simply aren't capable of biologically. Only white Europeans can contribute to civilization. That's what we're made for.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caishi
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_siege_of_Kaifeng
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang
            all feature artillery, bombs, rockets, firearms
            just stop, you are only embarrassing yourself

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Read what I said. You're the one embarrassing yourself. There's a difference between gunpowder and Chink flame-juice.

            >https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23302
            >published 2015
            irrelevant garbage

            Wiley isn't a good enough publisher for you? It's also present in ACM and RepEc.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Read what I said. You're the one embarrassing yourself. There's a difference between gunpowder and Chink flame-juice.
            bullshit
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon
            >Wiley isn't a good enough publisher for you? It's also present in ACM and RepEc.
            like I said, garbage. idgaf about brand names. could be published by the most prestigious institutions for all I care

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Western Europeans were already using better and smaller guns at the time. And also revolutionizing handgun design.

            persians/arabs aren't white. they made better counterweight trebuchets but china came up with gunpowder based weapons which travelled westwards. gunpowder was called "chinese snow" or "salt from the chinese marshes" by the arabs

            They got their siege weapons from Europeans. Most of their siege engineers were from Europeans. They called engineers in general faranka, meaning Frank.
            As for "chinese snow", that's again referring to flame juice, and not to anything we would call or even consider gunpowder today.
            Look it up on YouTube. There are plenty of demonstrations that prove this. Some embarrassed Chinese as well.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >that's again referring to flame juice
            wrong. you're thinking greek fire
            chinese gunpowder is what allows you to propel projectiles. this is indisputable. you are making a fool of yourself. no one else has ever claimed europeans invented gunpowder

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not thinking about Greek fire at all. Did I say it had no explosive properties? It's just that such explosive properties are in no way comparable to contemporary European gunpowder. It's like comparing a computer to an abacus.
            It's part of history because we like to be generous and give all races a slice of the innovation pie. That's just us being nice to them. They didn't actually ever invent anything.
            Anyway, I need to go have dinner so I accept your concession. There is no race that can contribute to human development except white Europeans. This is a fact, and denying this fact is denying reality.
            You don't have to patronize the Chinks. That itself is a form of looking down on them. They and other non-whites were made to serve us. There is nothing shameful in being a servant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >contemporary European gunpowder
            came from china, which had already developed its own guns and even rockets. europeans did not discover it, they got it. end of story

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They got it from China
            >But they were more advanced
            So, your narrative is that the Chinese discovered it first but Europeans outstripped them in every way in a couple years? Sounds like these Europeans are pretty smart. Might even be the master race or something.
            Did you spend too much time studying Chink history or something? Is that why you're bitter? You should have stuck to your own race, son. Don't take your blessings for granted.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >So, your narrative is that the Chinese discovered it first but Europeans outstripped them in every way in a couple years?
            correct. thank you for admitting the chinese discovered gunpowder, which you have been obstinately rejecting for some reason. your original question is what inventions you got from china, and you were upset by the answers, it seems you've accepted it now.
            as for what the europeans did with gunpowder later and with the industrial revolution, it doesn't prove they are superior, just that they are ahead in this era. before this era, it was obvious china and the islamic world were more advanced. now that we live in the post-ww1 era, present european civilization is beathing its last dying gasps, and other civilizations may overtake them once again

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't admit anything. Even according to your theory - which is wrong - Europeans got some flame juice and made it into something amazing.
            Truth is Europeans invented gunpowder but the classical narrative of Chinese inventing it already existed so to be nice, we gave it to the Chinese.
            Stick to the white race if you're white. Don't even bother studying these other races. There is enough in European scientific history to be amazed by. You don't have to gawk at strangers. It isn't polite. It's unseemly.
            European scientific history will transform you into a scientist. Chinese scientific history will make you we wuzz for a foreign ethnicity. Don't be a race traitor. We might tolerate traitors, but the Chinese don't.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth is Europeans invented gunpowder but the classical narrative of Chinese inventing it already existed so to be nice, we gave it to the Chinese.
            hahaha what is this cope
            >European scientific history will transform you into a scientist
            lol thanks for the career advice, but I don't need it. I have a better paying job than most "scientists"
            >Don't be a race traitor
            what race are you talking about? I'm not a Black person, it seems you are with your speech mannerisms

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Their "four great inventions", none of which they actually invented.
            Are you Chinese? Is that why you're boasting about a salary the white men gave you?
            White men don't boast. We literally give away credit to random races just for laughs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Their "four great inventions", none of which they actually invented.
            holy cope

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Stick to the white race if you're white. Don't even bother studying these other races. There is enough in European scientific history to be amazed by. You don't have to gawk at strangers. It isn't polite. It's unseemly.
            >European scientific history will transform you into a scientist. Chinese scientific history will make you we wuzz for a foreign ethnicity. Don't be a race traitor. We might tolerate traitors, but the Chinese don't.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the chinese didn't invent gunpowder they got it from Europeans, then claimed they invented it.
            Roger Bacon is the guy that invented gunpowder.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >A passage in the Opus Majus and another in the Opus Tertium are usually taken as the first European descriptions of a mixture containing the essential ingredients of gunpowder. Partington and others have come to the conclusion that Bacon most likely witnessed at least one demonstration of Chinese firecrackers, possibly obtained by Franciscans—including Bacon's friend William of Rubruck—who visited the Mongol Empire during this period.[58][n 6]
            lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >wikipedia
            He invented it before Europeans had even sent Marco Polo to China.
            Marco Polo brought the invention from Europe to China.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            its called the mongol empire, which invaded china and hungary moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Has nothing to do with that. Roger Bacon was a Brit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you think he invented gunpowder by himself while he was in britain? lmfao
            weren't you gonna go for dinner? hurry up, your food's getting cold, you don't want to keep your mom yelling. lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He invented it in the sense he was the first person to record it down. There is zero evidence he got it from the chinese or someone outside Europe.
            Theres supposedly evidence that gunpowder was known about in Europe well before this and people made gunpowder cars for kids.
            This is before China had it. China basically gets gunpowder after Polo visited them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Theres supposedly evidence that gunpowder was known about in Europe well before this and people made gunpowder cars for kids.
            Citation needed

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            As Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. L. Hime (Gunpowder and Ammunition, 1904) says, the invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of nearly pure saltpetre had become known. The honour, however, has been associated with two names in particular, Berthold Schwartz, a German monk, and Friar Roger Bacon. Of the former Oscar Guttmann writes (Monumenta pulveris pyrii, 1904, p. 6): "Berthold Schwartz was generally considered to be the inventor of gunpowder, and only in England has Roger Bacon's claim been upheld, though there are English writers who have pleaded in favour of Schwartz. Most writers are agreed that Schwartz invented the first fire-arms, and as nothing was known of an inventor of gunpowder, it was perhaps considered justifiable to give Schwartz the credit thereof. There is some ambiguity as to when Schwartz lived. The year 1354 is sometimes mentioned as the date of his invention of powder, and this is also to be inferred from an inscription on the monument to him in Freiburg. But considering there can be no doubt as to the manufacture in England of gunpowder and cannon in 1344, that we have authentic information of guns in France in 1338 and in Florence in 1326, and that the Oxford MS. De officiis regum of 1325 gives an illustration of a gun, Berthold Schwartz must have lived long before 1354 to have been the inventor of gunpowder or guns." In Germany also there were powder-works at Augsburg in 1340, in Spandau in 1344, and Liegnitz in 1348.

            Roger Bacon, in his De mirabili potestate artis et naturae (1242), makes the most important communication on the history of gunpowder. Reference is made to an explosive mixture as known before his time and employed for "diversion, producing a noise like thunder and flashes like lightning."

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In one passage Bacon speaks of saltpetre as a violent explosive, but there is no doubt that he knew it was not a self-explosive substance, but only so when mixed with other substances, as appears from the statement in De secretis operibus arils et naturae, printed at Hamburg in 1618, that "from saltpetre and other ingredients we are able to make a fire that shall burn at any distance we please." A great part of his three chapters, 9, 10, 11, long appeared without meaning until the anagrammatic nature of the sentences was realized. The words of this anagram are (chap. II): "Item ponderis totum 30 sed tamen salis petrae luru vopo vir can utri 1 et sulphuris; et sic facies tonitruum et coruscationem, si scias artificium. Videas tamen utrum loquar aenigmate aut secundum veritatem." Hime, in his chapter on the origin of gunpowder, discusses these chapters at length, and gives, omitting the anagram, the translation: "Let the total weight of the ingredients be 30, however, of saltpetre... of sulphur; and with such a mixture you will produce a bright flash and a thundering noise, if you know the trick. You may find (by actual experiment) whether I am writing riddles to you or the plain truth." The anagram reads, according to Hime, "salis petrae r(ecipe) vii part(es), v nov(ellae) corul(i), v et sulphuris" (take seven parts of saltpetre, five of young hazel-wood, and five of sulphur). Hime then goes on to show that Bacon was in possession of an explosive which was a considerable advance on mere incendiary compositions. Bacon does not appear to have been aware of the projecting power of gunpowder. He knew that it exploded and that perhaps people might be blown up or frightened by it; more cannot be said. The behaviour of small quantities of any explosive is hardly ever indicative of its behaviour in large quantities and especially when under confinement.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The year 1354 is sometimes mentioned as the date of his invention of powder
            so long after china invented rockets, artillery, hand cannons, landmines, grenades, flamethrowers and was using them to kill jurchens

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the chinese claims are bullshit and retroactive.

            Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century AD and was primarily produced in the provinces of Sichuan, Shanxi, and Shandong.[9] There is strong evidence of the use of saltpeter and sulfur in various medicinal combinations.[10] A Chinese alchemical text dated 492 noted saltpeter burnt with a purple flame, providing a practical and reliable means of distinguishing it from other inorganic salts, thus enabling alchemists to evaluate and compare purification techniques; the earliest Latin accounts of saltpeter purification are dated after 1200.[11]

            Imagine getting btfo'd by wikipedia lel

            >wikipedia
            chinese propaganda site and not trustworthy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the chinese claims are bullshit and retroactive.

            >chinese propaganda site and not trustworthy
            >ITS ALL MUH FAKE!
            hahahahahaha end of the road buddy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >it's only okay when we do it

            > In Germany, around 1440, goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution.

            Cry more.
            The absolute state of roger bacon schizo

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            i didnt quote wiki because its unreliable i quoted a non-wiki site.
            Stop lying chink

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >i quoted a non-wiki site.
            no you didn't. stop lying and projecting Black person

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            stop lying

            In one passage Bacon speaks of saltpetre as a violent explosive, but there is no doubt that he knew it was not a self-explosive substance, but only so when mixed with other substances, as appears from the statement in De secretis operibus arils et naturae, printed at Hamburg in 1618, that "from saltpetre and other ingredients we are able to make a fire that shall burn at any distance we please." A great part of his three chapters, 9, 10, 11, long appeared without meaning until the anagrammatic nature of the sentences was realized. The words of this anagram are (chap. II): "Item ponderis totum 30 sed tamen salis petrae luru vopo vir can utri 1 et sulphuris; et sic facies tonitruum et coruscationem, si scias artificium. Videas tamen utrum loquar aenigmate aut secundum veritatem." Hime, in his chapter on the origin of gunpowder, discusses these chapters at length, and gives, omitting the anagram, the translation: "Let the total weight of the ingredients be 30, however, of saltpetre... of sulphur; and with such a mixture you will produce a bright flash and a thundering noise, if you know the trick. You may find (by actual experiment) whether I am writing riddles to you or the plain truth." The anagram reads, according to Hime, "salis petrae r(ecipe) vii part(es), v nov(ellae) corul(i), v et sulphuris" (take seven parts of saltpetre, five of young hazel-wood, and five of sulphur). Hime then goes on to show that Bacon was in possession of an explosive which was a considerable advance on mere incendiary compositions. Bacon does not appear to have been aware of the projecting power of gunpowder. He knew that it exploded and that perhaps people might be blown up or frightened by it; more cannot be said. The behaviour of small quantities of any explosive is hardly ever indicative of its behaviour in large quantities and especially when under confinement.

            Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century AD and was primarily produced in the provinces of Sichuan, Shanxi, and Shandong.[9] There is strong evidence of the use of saltpeter and sulfur in various medicinal combinations.[10] A Chinese alchemical text dated 492 noted saltpeter burnt with a purple flame, providing a practical and reliable means of distinguishing it from other inorganic salts, thus enabling alchemists to evaluate and compare purification techniques; the earliest Latin accounts of saltpeter purification are dated after 1200.[11]

            Imagine getting btfo'd by wikipedia lel

            what i quoted, thats another anon.
            Lying chink.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sure you did buddy. Sure you did

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >he's lying again
            Kek

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            holy shit its in the robot.txt hahahaha

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century AD and was primarily produced in the provinces of Sichuan, Shanxi, and Shandong.[9] There is strong evidence of the use of saltpeter and sulfur in various medicinal combinations.[10] A Chinese alchemical text dated 492 noted saltpeter burnt with a purple flame, providing a practical and reliable means of distinguishing it from other inorganic salts, thus enabling alchemists to evaluate and compare purification techniques; the earliest Latin accounts of saltpeter purification are dated after 1200.[11]

            Imagine getting btfo'd by wikipedia lel

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The first confirmed reference to what can be considered gunpowder in China occurred in the 9th century AD during the Tang dynasty, first in a formula contained in the Taishang Shengzu Jindan Mijue (太上聖祖金丹秘訣) in 808

            Cry more

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            can't trust chinese sources, they retroactively make up history even artefacts
            Reminder the supposed earliest chinese canons were noted to have dubious carbon dating, being much younger than their claimed age, ie forgeries.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            carbon dating only works for organic materials m0r0n

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Chinese used poop instead of ink. Their manuscripts are very "organic".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            we're talking about china not india sir

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinaman exposed. Friendly reminder to everyone that this here is a Chinaman.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            because I posted something about india? hahahahahahaha so the schizo is a pajeet

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You defended China by attacking India. If you were all about "classical civilizations", you wouldn't have done that. Chinaman kys.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            what made you ever think I was interested in "defending classical civilizations" poojeet?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If you are white and interested in China, you would also be interested in Turks, Russians, Arabs, Indians out of curiosity in non-Western civilization. However, you shill exclusively for China, which implies that you are Chinaman. La logique, c'est simple.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If you are white and interested in China, you would also be interested in Turks, Russians, Arabs, Indians out of curiosity in non-Western civilization
            >Russians
            what makes you think this?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Talking about old Russians. Pre-Peter. When they were considered foreign Turkics.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >When they were considered foreign Turkics
            which is stupid, since they were orthodox christians who got their culture and language from the greek romans in constantinople

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And Turks are Anatolians. What's your point? I'm saying you wouldn't just go all in on China. You'd also defend Arabs, Indians, Turks, etc. Going all in on China proves you are a Chinaman.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You defended China by attacking India. If you were all about "classical civilizations", you wouldn't have done that
            >implying indians were ever civilized
            LMAO

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440302908113

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            well? did they use this experimental technique, for carbon dating something that doesn't contain carbon?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you realise they can date residue on artefacts that contain carbon.
            Carbon is used in metal work, carbon is found on non-organic objects.
            Of course you dont you are a moron chink

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Carbon is used in metal work
            the heilongjiang hand cannon was bronze not steel moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            carbon is still used in bronze metal work. stop trying to be smart you moronic chink animal.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Oh? But it was also confirmed by huwhyte historians. Surely you're not seething hard enough to ignore the huwhyte historians? And how would you ignore sources written by someone who's neither white or chinese such as this

            Lmao. Is that why Hassan al-rammah who was Bacon's comtemporary described saltpeter as "chinese snow", rockets as "chinese arrows", and fireworks as "chinese flowers". Not to mentioned that he claimed to have learned it from his forefathers? Did the knowledge of gunpowder teleported and time-travelled from England to China?

            ?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >bringing race into it
            it has nothing to do with race you racist idiot.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >This is before China had it. China basically gets gunpowder after Polo visited them.
            Marco Polo visited China during the Yuan dynasty, China had gunpowder weapons during the Song dynasty. You are just embarrassing yourself by exposing how clueless you are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao. Is that why Hassan al-rammah who was Bacon's comtemporary described saltpeter as "chinese snow", rockets as "chinese arrows", and fireworks as "chinese flowers". Not to mentioned that he claimed to have learned it from his forefathers? Did the knowledge of gunpowder teleported and time-travelled from England to China?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese used gunpowder in bombs and rockets, not just for flammable applications, before Europeans.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wujing_Zongyao#Gunpowder_weapons

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Also, sounds like it was Chinese taking from whites even at the time.
            >Because the Han Chinese commander Guo Kan fought with the Mongols under Hulagu in the Middle East, Kublai had heard of siege engines of great effectiveness. Experts Ismail and Al al-Din were sent by Abaqa, Ilkhan of Persia, to China by the decree of Kublai Khan in 1272. They built the powerful siege engines under the Uyghur general Arikhgiya by March, 1273. These counterweight trebuchets had a shooting range of 500 metres (1,600 ft), and could launch projectiles weighing over 300 kilograms (660 lb).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            persians/arabs aren't white. they made better counterweight trebuchets but china came up with gunpowder based weapons which travelled westwards. gunpowder was called "chinese snow" or "salt from the chinese marshes" by the arabs

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23302
            >published 2015
            irrelevant garbage

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >1267

            Mongols already may have used gunpowder at Alamut in 1256 and earlier at Mohi in 1241.

            >As for "chinese snow", that's again referring to flame juice,

            liar it referred to potassium nitrate

            >printing
            >compass
            >standardized testing
            Independent invented in the West
            >gunpowder
            Smokeless gunpowder is invented in the West
            >guns
            >rocket
            Westerners modified and enhanced so much they look nothing like things made by chinks

            > In Germany, around 1440, goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution.

            Cry more.

            >In Germany, around 1440, goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution.

            inventing the printing press isn't inventing printing or even movable type.

            Chinese invented printing and moveable type printing. Gutenberg just put the printing apparatus into a press like an olive oil press.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >movable type
            Inking a piece of wood shaped after a lerter isn't as much of a deal as making a printing press

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese made wooden, ceramic and metal movable type.

            They didn't use guns until Europeans sold guns to them. What's next? They invented aircraft and nukes as well?

            They got muskets from Europeans as well.
            [...]
            Turks are also from the steppe. They managed cannons just fine. Stop coping, Chinaman.

            this is unironically how chinks think. They we wuz every invention.
            I've had chinks literally outright claim even if Europeans invented something, of course China "surely" had it first.
            The modern chinese then pressure people to repeat their lies, like claiming they invented football, trains, computers etc.

            Chinese invented handgonnes (hand cannon), fire arrows (rockets) and fire lances and cannon (cast iron cannon and bronze cannon).

            Europeans invented the musket by adding the trigger mechanism but Chinese already invented and had hand cannons and cannons and rockets in China when the musket was introduced and replaced the handcannon.

            this is unironically how chinks think. They we wuz every invention.
            I've had chinks literally outright claim even if Europeans invented something, of course China "surely" had it first.
            The modern chinese then pressure people to repeat their lies, like claiming they invented football, trains, computers etc.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chien-Shiung_Wu
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Kao

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >by adding the trigger mechanism
            >JUST adding the trigger mechanism

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >>JUST adding the trigger mechanism
            yep and ming china did that anyway after yuan stagnation. you're getting btfo, just admit defeat and run away with your tail tucked. you're not really good at debate, history, or general reasoning. you seem like a thoroughly worthless person

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >handgonnes
            Putting fire powder they got from Europeans in a barrel. Wow!
            >fire arrows
            Arrows... but with fire! Much innovation! Much wow!
            >fire lances
            Put explosives on a stick. Are we winning yet, Chinasisters?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            handgonnes, fire arrows, fire lances and bombs were invented by Chinese in the Song dynasty centuries before Roger Bacon.

            Turks were never more than a regional power. But they did manage to go toe-to-toe with Europeans despite coming from the steppe. Same with Hungarians and Russians too technically. Chinks however were manhandled in every single conflict with the West.
            >China is a superpower
            You definitely are a Chink.

            >Chinks however were manhandled in every single conflict with the West.

            China defeated Portugal and the Dutch East India company in every battle.

            the same Portuguese assraped the Mamluks, Ottomans, Sultanates in India and Japan.

            Ming China defeated the Portuguese at sea in every battle while a single Portuguese ship defeated hundreds of Japanese ships for days. Ming Chinese also defeated the Dutch while the Japanese asked the Dutch to help kill their own people in the Shimabara rebellion.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimabara_Rebellion

            40 Portuguese killed hundreds of Japanese in the Nossa Senhora da Graça incident

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nossa_Senhora_da_Graça_incident

            80 Portuguese and some Chinese on two ships defeated 70 Japanese ships and hundreds of Samurai at the Battle of Fukuda Bay. Only eight Portuguese died, 70 Japanese were killed, 200 Japanese wounded and three ships sank.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fukuda_Bay

            Ming China defeated the Portuguese fleet at the battles of Tunmen, Shancaowan, and Shuangyu Island

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tunmen

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shancaowan

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galeote_Pereira

            Ming China defeated the Dutch fleet at Liaoluo bay, Zeelandia, and Penghu.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Zeelandia

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu#Ming_dynasty

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            China maintained naval supremacy in East Asia from the BC era until 1839 AD and raided Sri Lanka in the Ming Kotte War. Japan's navy was defeated by every opponent before the 19th century.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_baekgang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tangdao

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming–Kotte_War

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noryang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang

            The Battle of Baekgang shattered the Japanese navy and scared them into totally withdrawing from the war in Baekje and build dozens of fortresses to prevent an invasion.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean-style_fortresses_in_Japan

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Japan's navy was defeated by every opponent before the 19th century
            japan's navy was never impressive. their most notable naval history is jobbing to one korean admiral and jobbing to one american carrier. japan's only really notable naval victory is against the russian navy (lol).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >China defeated the Dutch
            >Provides proof of the Dutch beating Japanese
            Chinaman is on concentrated copium now.

            China maintained naval supremacy in East Asia from the BC era until 1839 AD and raided Sri Lanka in the Ming Kotte War. Japan's navy was defeated by every opponent before the 19th century.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_baekgang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tangdao

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming–Kotte_War

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noryang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang

            The Battle of Baekgang shattered the Japanese navy and scared them into totally withdrawing from the war in Baekje and build dozens of fortresses to prevent an invasion.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baekgang

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean-style_fortresses_in_Japan

            They raided... SRI LANKA?!?!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            defeated the Dutch
            yes, ever heard of zheng chenggong? ever wonder why its called taiwan, not formosa?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >zheng chenggong
            25,000 soliders versus 900 merchants. Very balanced conflict.
            Still taking casualties at a 10-to-1 ratio. From Dutch businessmen, lol.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >25,000 soliders
            ming loyalists who were on the run from the qing and had no one to supply them

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They raided... SRI LANKA?!?!
            not just raided, their king was abducted and then allowed to resume his rule on conditions he provide free passage and port entry for chinese vessels

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            SRI LANKA's king was ABDUCTED? They got PORT PRIVILEGES?!?!?
            I was wrong about China. They truly are a superpower. I kneel. All hail our Chink masters!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Ming loyalists had no one to supply them
            >But Dutch businessmen in China totally did!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            ming loyalists who sailed on ships to taiwan to launch a naval assault directly against a dutch fort and won

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            25,000 of the most battle hardened troops won against 900 fat merchants? Oh no, Dutchbros! How will we cope!
            Europeans should have a read of this. This should be a reminder that at no point in time should anyone trust the Chinese.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Zeelandia

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese slaughtered Dutch musketmen on the field outside the fort and obliterated the Dutch fleet send to rescue them.

            >zheng chenggong
            25,000 soliders versus 900 merchants. Very balanced conflict.
            Still taking casualties at a 10-to-1 ratio. From Dutch businessmen, lol.

            Most of the Chinese casualties were from starvation and disease moron. There was mass scurvy and a lack of supplies.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you know the conventional wisdom, a ship's a fool to fight a fort?
            yeah unless it's a dutch fort turns out
            oh and the dutch ships were way bigger than the chinese ones but got btfo anyway

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            to (you)

            >25,000 soliders
            ming loyalists who were on the run from the qing and had no one to supply them

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I was wrong about China. They truly are a superpower
            correct. and don't you forget it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese had three times the numbers and were operating on home territory, yet:
            >Ming officials hailed the victory as a "miracle at sea", as Zou Weilian observed that people had felt "ever since the red barbarians arrived... this kind of victory had been extremely rare".
            Also, the source itself has a hilarious name:
            >Lost colony : the untold story of China's first great victory over the West
            As usual, written by a Western weeb using Chinese sources. Their own casualty numbers are also conveniently hidden.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > this kind of victory had been extremely rare".

            China won every single battle against the Dutch for decades

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_conflicts

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Ming China
            Population: 150 million
            >Dutch Republic
            Population: 1.5 million
            That too with only random Dutch BUSINESSMEN thousands of miles away from home. Imagine the massacre that would happen with the actual Dutch army.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Dutch army
            no such thing

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese defeated the Dutch fleet at Liaoluo bay in 1633 and earlier in the Penghu/Pescadores islands in 1624 and multiple Dutch ships like the Dutch ship Cuylenberg later.

            Chinese defeated the Portuguese at Tunmen in 1521 and shancaowan in 1522 while the Portuguese ass raped the Japanese and conquered Arabian cities like Aden, Muscat etc.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >tunmen
            50+ Chinese ships versus 5 ships. 2 Portuguese lost. "Unknown" Chinese losses.
            >sincouwan
            300 ships versus 6 ships. 1 ship destroyed. "Unknown" Chinese losses.
            And these are using CHINESE sources painting as positive of a picture as they can. This is honestly just getting pathetic.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The same Portuguese assraped Mamluks, Ottomans, Sultanates and India and Japanese at fukuda bay.

            China was the only country which defeated the Portuguese on first arrival of the Portuguese besides the stone age Khoi san who did it at the battle of salt river.

            >Ming China
            Population: 150 million
            >Dutch Republic
            Population: 1.5 million
            That too with only random Dutch BUSINESSMEN thousands of miles away from home. Imagine the massacre that would happen with the actual Dutch army.

            It was Southern Ming forces who only controlled xiamen and Jinmen moron, not mainland China, who faced the Dutch in Zeelandia.

            As for before, it was also only Zheng Zhilong's private army against the Dutch at Liaoluo bay not the entire Ming dynasty.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Defeated the Portuguese? They lost handily if you're going by numbers. Even the strongest man in the world would lost to a 100 midgets. What does that prove exactly?
            >southern ming, private army
            Did they outnumber the Dutch 10-to-1 on home territory or not?

            >Dutch army
            no such thing

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_States_Army

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese lost zero ships to the Portuguese and sank and captured Portuguese ships and the remaining Portuguese ships retreated.

            None of the Portuguese captains claim they successfully sunk a Chinese ship but acknowledged they lost ships.

            Chinese also captured Portuguese folangji cannons in the battle.

            Chinese already invented and developed muzzle loading cast iron cannons. Europeans didn't develop cast iron until after this, so Europeans were forced to use wrought iron breech loading cannon instead of muzzle loading cast iron cannons since bronze was expensive.

            Chinese captured the Portuguese folangji breech loading cannons and reverse engineered them, supplementing local muzzle loaders.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The Portuguese took account of their losses
            >That means the Chinese had NO losses!

            >Did they outnumber the Dutch 10-to-1 on home territory or not?
            >home territory
            obviously no, since the dutch were the ones who controlled the entire island, while zheng chenggong's ming loyalists had no home on the mainland anymore. they were like pirates who successfully toppled a nation

            Yes, the plucky underdog with an imperial army of tens of thousands overthrowing the domineering rabble of obese Dutch traders. Indeed a tale of heroism to last for the ages.
            You're actually proving how the Chinese won. They kept pestering others until they decided they simply have better things to do. It's numbers and persistence that gives the Chinese victory. In terms of technology, they will continue to be incredibly backward.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Both Chinese and Portuguese sources say the Portuguese lost ships (sunk and captured) while saying Chinese did not loose any ships.

            Any casualties Chinese lost were just on the melee battle when they boarded and captured the Portuguese ship and defeated the Portuguese crew.

            same with Liaoluo bay and the Dutch.

            >imperial army of tens of thousands overthrowing the domineering rabble of obese Dutch traders.

            The Dutch were defeated in both the open field as Chinese killed Dutch musketmen led by Captain Tomas and in the naval battle when the Dutch attempted to relieve the siege of the fortress with reinforcements from Indonesia.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Did they outnumber the Dutch 10-to-1 on home territory or not?
            >home territory
            obviously no, since the dutch were the ones who controlled the entire island, while zheng chenggong's ming loyalists had no home on the mainland anymore. they were like pirates who successfully toppled a nation

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >And these are using CHINESE sources painting as positive of a picture as they can.

            Wrong, Portuguese sources are also used and mention the amount of Portuguese losses.

            The fact is that Chinese lost zero ships at the battles with Portugal and the Dutch at liaoluo bay (besides the fireship that was meant to suicide attack and explode the Dutch ship)

            How do we know this? Because the Portuguese and Dutch THEMSELVES don't claim any Chinese ships were sunk by their own cannon and admit they were the only ones who lost ships.

            as for individual casualties, Chinese ships were smaller and they succesfully boarded and captured a Portuguese ship and a Dutch ship

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Based on these Taoist texts, the invention of gunpowder by Chinese alchemists was likely an accidental byproduct from experiments seeking to create the elixir of life.
            Yes
            And then they used it for making boom boom because it made big boom boom. Therefore they invented gunpowder. You telling me aspartame wasn't invented just because it was an accident too?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >printing
          >compass
          >standardized testing
          Independent invented in the West
          >gunpowder
          Smokeless gunpowder is invented in the West
          >guns
          >rocket
          Westerners modified and enhanced so much they look nothing like things made by chinks

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Smokeless gunpowder is invented in the West
            in 17th century france, long after gunpowder revolutionized warfare
            >printing
            >compass
            this is incorrect. paper made the chinese way and chinese printing methods were what allowed the gutenberg printing press to be made. you can't print on parchment. china invented the movable type long before gutenberg too, but it was impractical due to the large number of chinese characters.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > in 17th century france, long after gunpowder revolutionized warfare
            Cope
            >
            More cope. Those things are independent inventions.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >During the Islamic Golden Age, Arab Muslims were printing texts, including passages from the Qur’an, embracing the Chinese craft of paper making, developed it and adopted it widely in the Muslim world, which led to a major increase in the production of manuscript texts. In Egypt during the Fatimid era, the printing technique was adopted reproducing texts on paper strips by hand and supplying them in various copies to meet the demand.[16]
            >Gutenberg adopted the basic design, thereby mechanizing the printing process.[17] Printing, however, put a demand on the machine quite different from pressing. Gutenberg adapted the construction so that the pressing power exerted by the platen on the paper was now applied both evenly and with the required sudden elasticity. To speed up the printing process, he introduced a movable undertable with a plane surface on which the sheets could be swiftly changed.[18]

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >In Germany, around 1440, goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yes you copied from what I pasted. do you want a cookie?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > In Germany, around 1440, goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution.

            Cry more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            why should I? it doesn't disprove anything I said. 1440 is long after bi sheng invented the movable type

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You do know Europeans include groups like Finns and Albanians?

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    War is the biggest driver of scientific progress. Europeans have been constantly fighting each other since the fall of the Roman Empire while China has been relatively peaceful.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >while China has been relatively peaceful.
      lol

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    asians and orientials are more spiritually evolved then westerners , they've evolved past religion that's why it seems to us they are behind, they are actually decades ahead.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    asians aren't very smart, they are compulsive liars though

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you post the same thing over and over again? Everytime it's always "why didn't china blablabla bullcrap" "why did china fall behind blablabla" SEARCH IT UP ON YOUTUBE.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >resorts to posting serpentza
      lmfao

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Serpentza is good because he doesn't hate chinese or asians. but he exposes how derpy chinese are specifically their government.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Serpentza is good
          lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Protip: chinese claim they invented everything and its all lies.
    4 great inventions, all lies
    4 great modern inventions even more obvious lies.

    Who knows how long they have been doing this, probably at least since they started claiming they invented gunpowder.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He'll just call the book fake. This isn't the first time the baconschizo throws a fit

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What are you talking about? Even the Greeks used explosives.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Even the Greeks used explosives
      wrong, greek fire can't explode, only burn, hence why its "greek fire" while chinese snow is "gunpowder"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm talking about barrel bombs, chink POS.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I dropped a barrel bomb on your mom's house LMFAO

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the Greeks didn't use black powder/gunpowder. They used greek fire for flammable attacks and if they had explosives it was something else and very weak.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >oldest gun https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon
    >no later than 1288
    >Roger Bacon writes down gunpowder 1242

    supposed older gun comment
    >Chen Bingying disputes the impact of these discoveries, and argues there were no guns before 1259, while Dang Shoushan believes the Western Xia guns point to the appearance of guns by 1220, and Stephen Haw goes even further by stating that guns were developed as early as 1200.[5] Sinologist Joseph Needham and renaissance siege expert Thomas Arnold provide a more conservative estimate of around 1280 for the appearance of the "true" cannon.[6][7] Whether or not any of these are correct, it seems likely that the gun was born sometime during the 13th century.[4]

    Most cannon seem to magically appear AFTER Bacon wrote about it.
    But the existence of cannons before Bacon wrote about it are regarded with skepticism.
    Imagine my shock

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wujing Zongyao doesn't talk about cannons. It talks about bombs and rockets. Can you read?

      >The Wujing Zongyao records detailed descriptions of gunpowder weapons such as incendiary projectiles, smoke bombs, fire arrows, and grenades. It documents incendiary projectiles containing low-nitrate gunpowder,[23] which were launched from catapults or lowered down from city walls onto besiegers.[24] Examples of these incendiaries include the "swallow-tail" incendiary (燕尾炬; yanweiju) and the flying incendiary (飛炬; feiju). The swallow-tail incendiary was made of straw tied together and dipped in fat or oil. Chinese soldiers defending a city under siege would light the incendiary and lower it onto any wooden structure of the invading army to engulf it in fire. The flying incendiary visually resembled the swallow-tail incendiary, but was lowered using an iron chain from a swape lever installed within the walls of the city.[24] The book also describes an 'igniter ball' used in warfare and for finding the firing range. The Wujing Zongyao stated the following:

      >The Wujing Zongyao's first recorded gunpowder formula used in these bombs held a potassium nitrate level of 55.4% to 55.5%, sulfur content of 19.4% to 26.5%, and carbonaceous content of 23% to 25.2%.[34] The first step for making gunpowder is to powder and mix together sulphur, saltpetre, charcoal, pitch, and dried lacquer. Tung oil, dried plants, and wax are mixed next to create a paste. The paste and powder are combined and carefully stirred. Then the mixture is placed inside a paper container, wrapped up, and tied using hemp twine.[35] Several precautions are taken to prevent the gunpowder from becoming damp.[1]

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        talks about, so not physical evidence. Just retroactive history.
        Because no physical evidence backs it up.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          see

          >the chinese claims are bullshit and retroactive.

          >chinese propaganda site and not trustworthy
          >ITS ALL MUH FAKE!
          hahahahahaha end of the road buddy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            no physical evidence for chinese gunpowder.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Kek. This board really attracts the most moronic schizos I swear

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Wujing zongyao manuscripts predate western people trying to claim they invented gunpowder by centuries. Why would Chinese make up a manuscript and put a false date on it to win an argument centuries later with people they don't even know exist?

          >However, the historian Joseph Needham asserts that the 1510 AD edition is the most reliable in its faithfulness to the original version, since it was printed from blocks that were re-carved directly from tracings of the edition made in 1231 AD, rather than recombining fragments of the original with other material.[11]

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      so roger bacon discovered it in 1260 and it made its way to china by 1280 while skipping over russia and the middle east? your arguments are just getting more hilarious

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        he wrote about it in 1240s and gave some indication it was already known about it in Europe.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't he write his book in the 1467? Where did you even pull this 1440's date from

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            no lol? man was alive in the 1200s. He invented a lot of stuff the guy was the equivalent of a scientist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'll just quote this guy instead

            Not gunpowder.
            >Based on these Taoist texts, the invention of gunpowder by Chinese alchemists was likely an accidental byproduct from experiments seeking to create the elixir of life.
            Just another weeb.
            >Professor Kenneth Warren Chase credits the Mongols for introducing into Europe gunpowder and its associated weaponry. However, there is no clear route of transmission
            Also, the Chinese supposedly invented their ooga-booga chemical mixes around the 1200s. Europe on the other hand
            >The earliest Western accounts of gunpowder appears in texts written by English philosopher Roger Bacon in 1267 called Opus Majus and Opus Tertium.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Rockets were well known in middle east by the time Bacon wrote his book dude. Here

      Lmao. Is that why Hassan al-rammah who was Bacon's comtemporary described saltpeter as "chinese snow", rockets as "chinese arrows", and fireworks as "chinese flowers". Not to mentioned that he claimed to have learned it from his forefathers? Did the knowledge of gunpowder teleported and time-travelled from England to China?

      What do you think rockets are powered with

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ok Chang
    Ok Raj

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    chinese invention of gunpowder makes no sense. So you are telling me
    >chinese invented guns
    >get invaded by Europeans with guns
    >instead of using their own guns they decide to fight them kung fu style and get shot.
    Makes no freaking sense dude, chinese history makes no sense.
    Even the middle easterners used guns.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Asians are good at one thing and one thing only. Throwing bodies at the enemy. We will lose to Chinamen, but it will be because we are overwhelmed by their numbers. Their technology will always be subpar.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They used guns in their war dude. Do your entire knowledge of Chinese history comes from Jackie Chan movies?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        boxer war was literally called that because they tried to fight Europeans with kung fu. Educate yourself

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >boxer war
          was an uprising of illiterate and uneducated peasants, while the modern european trained and equipped armies were on standby and didn't even intervene. it was basically a civil war between the government in beijing (cixi) and the provincial governors who refused to follow orders at that point

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nope. It was called that because it was started BY a bunch of kungfu peasants. In terms of weapon they simply fought with whatever they had at hand. Read homie

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They didn't use guns until Europeans sold guns to them. What's next? They invented aircraft and nukes as well?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >They didn't use guns until Europeans sold guns to them
          they did, but by the late 19th century european rifles made possible by industrial machinery were obviously far superior to pre-industrial chinese muskets

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They got muskets from Europeans as well.

            >>get invaded by Europeans with guns
            of using their own guns they decide to fight them kung fu style and get shot.
            first this is inaccurate. qing soldiers used wall guns which took two men to operator on the field, one to carry one to fire. this was a rather primitive weapon but a matchlock like gun nevertheless.
            second the qing was a dynasty founded by barbarians who didn't understand science or machinery. the ming dynasty developed guns and naval artillery to the best of their abilities. ming even had breech loading guns. the manchus were steppeBlack person tier morons who believed archery was more graceful than guns and focused on cavalry instead of infantry and artillery. they also did not understand naval power. they were not confused by european guns, but by why european guns were so accurate.

            Turks are also from the steppe. They managed cannons just fine. Stop coping, Chinaman.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They got muskets from Europeans as well.
            wrong
            >Turks are also from the steppe. They managed cannons just fine
            no they didn't. ottoman empire failed to modernize just like qing china. difference is today china is a superpower while turkey is barely a regional power

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Turks were never more than a regional power. But they did manage to go toe-to-toe with Europeans despite coming from the steppe. Same with Hungarians and Russians too technically. Chinks however were manhandled in every single conflict with the West.
            >China is a superpower
            You definitely are a Chink.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          this is unironically how chinks think. They we wuz every invention.
          I've had chinks literally outright claim even if Europeans invented something, of course China "surely" had it first.
          The modern chinese then pressure people to repeat their lies, like claiming they invented football, trains, computers etc.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This. Their unfounded arrogance is hilarious.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's very well-founded arrogance. The Chinese are humanity's greatest race. In numbers and in might, no one compares.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >chinese
            >humanity

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it really just seems like a cope history invented by the Chinese.
      >ashkully we totally invented guns, we just didn't use them! because because it'd would be unfair! we are very honourable! yeah thats it HONOURABLE

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        we totally invented guns, we just didn't use them! because because it'd would be unfair! we are very honourable! yeah thats it HONOURABLE
        wrong, it was due to rule by inept barbarians. see

        >>get invaded by Europeans with guns
        of using their own guns they decide to fight them kung fu style and get shot.
        first this is inaccurate. qing soldiers used wall guns which took two men to operator on the field, one to carry one to fire. this was a rather primitive weapon but a matchlock like gun nevertheless.
        second the qing was a dynasty founded by barbarians who didn't understand science or machinery. the ming dynasty developed guns and naval artillery to the best of their abilities. ming even had breech loading guns. the manchus were steppeBlack person tier morons who believed archery was more graceful than guns and focused on cavalry instead of infantry and artillery. they also did not understand naval power. they were not confused by european guns, but by why european guns were so accurate.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >>get invaded by Europeans with guns
      of using their own guns they decide to fight them kung fu style and get shot.
      first this is inaccurate. qing soldiers used wall guns which took two men to operator on the field, one to carry one to fire. this was a rather primitive weapon but a matchlock like gun nevertheless.
      second the qing was a dynasty founded by barbarians who didn't understand science or machinery. the ming dynasty developed guns and naval artillery to the best of their abilities. ming even had breech loading guns. the manchus were steppeBlack person tier morons who believed archery was more graceful than guns and focused on cavalry instead of infantry and artillery. they also did not understand naval power. they were not confused by european guns, but by why european guns were so accurate.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Manchus were not steppeBlack folk. Manchus were sedentary farmers who lived in the mountains of Jilin in wooden cabins and villages and cities, not in yurts on the steppe.

        Both Ming armies and Qing armies had guns and cannons, just not bolt action ones invented after the industrial revolution.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          hence why i said steppeBlack person tier. because they were as dumb as them, except for kangxi

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Asians are good at one thing and one thing only. Throwing bodies at the enemy. We will lose to Chinamen, but it will be because we are overwhelmed by their numbers. Their technology will always be subpar.

      boxer war was literally called that because they tried to fight Europeans with kung fu. Educate yourself

      The Boxer rebels literally used guns like gingals you moron, western newspapers during the boxer rebellion were filled with pictures of Chinese gingal guns and other weapons.

      The Boxers didn't believe in not using guns, you're confusing their belief of being BULLETPROOF with your false belief that they were against guns.

      Some Boxer rebels allegedly claimed to Cixi that they had bulletproof magic but they also used guns against European forces.

      in Vietnam there was a rebellion by a Vietnamese who claimed he had potions that could turn people invisible and he gave them to his followers to plant bombs against the French

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_X%C3%ADch_Long

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        stop lying
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_movement

        the Boxers, fighting troops of the Eight-Nation Alliance with close combat weapons or even their own hands, were decimated. After the conflict, The Empress Dowager Ci Xi ordered the repression of the remaining Boxers, in an attempt to calm the foreign nations.[13]

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          this is the citation used on the wiki article moron. A pop kung fu magazine

          https://web.archive.org/web/20110831100857/http://www.tao-yin.com/wai-jia/revolte_boxeurs_1.html

          this is what boxers actually used

          https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/u6x6v/very_long_barreled_60_or_more_chinese_jingal_wall/

          https://www.pvoller.net/new_stamps/germany/china/china-private.php

          >In sharp contrast to the image above, the Boxers were generally poorly equipped, especially during the initial stages when they armed themselves with anything that was at hand, such as sticks and farm implements. Later, after the Chinese Army intervened they were better supplied, now having access to rifles. Although poorly armed their tactics were quite successful, relying to a large extent on ambushes to attack and wear down their better equipped enemy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Asians fighting Asians with European weapons. What else is knew?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Asians fighting Asians with European weapons. What else is knew?

          Actual source on the Boxer rebellion from 1901

          https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qc4NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=china+jingals+swords+boxer&source=bl&ots=OddvuXwc50&sig=ACfU3U1G531syxYD4bty8UGgE6dQYQ_nig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDxYv5ncv8AhUYElkFHUgTBjc4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=china%20jingals%20swords%20boxer&f=false

          >There were a great many red placards in the streets and on the walls, which were probably most of them anti-foreign. Nearly all the yamêns seem to have been Boxer centres, as they were filled with jingals bound with red cloth, and rifles, new and old, modern and ancient, with all kinds of swords, spear banners, etc. There were also a great many uniforms, and unmistakable signs of meetings having been lately held in some of them. The inhabitants--there were only a few remaining-seemed very frightened of foreigners, running away in terror whenever they caught sight of them, but later on they appeared to grow less alarmed, and to be very anxious to have something written on their little white flags which they all carried, for which in exchange they gave presents of chickens, melons, etc. Judging by their anxiety to get their flags written on, I fancy they all expected to get killed.

          https://www.liveauctioneers.com/en-gb/item/92548420_1896-chinese-tien-jin-jingal-60-cal-wall-rifle

          https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/men-and-guns-of-the-1900-china-relief-expedition/

          >Facing the Americans in China, the Boxers were equipped with a wide variety of armament ranging from the ancient and traditional to the relatively modern. According to Capt. A.P. Blocksom, Sixth Cavalry, “One-third of the Chinese enemy are armed with rifles, the remainder carrying spears, swords, etc.”

          Manchus suffered the overwhelming majority of the massacres and rapes in the Boxer rebellion. Beijing was where most Manchus in the Qing lived and they were subjected to rape and slaughter.

          Han Chinese dominated armies in the provinces refused to help.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/942jid/comment/e3kr2ls/

            https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/n8gs0l/what_were_the_weapons_used_by_boxers_during_boxer/

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >reddit
            Are you lost, son?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And this widespread belief of being bulletproof is supposed to be proof of Chinks being superior? Lol.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >some peasant cult uprising believes moronic shit
          huge news. is qanon proof of american intellectual abilities?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Asians are good at one thing and one thing only. Throwing bodies at the enemy. We will lose to Chinamen, but it will be because we are overwhelmed by their numbers. Their technology will always be subpar.

      Chinese defeated Europeans like Portugal at the battle of Tunmen and Shancaowan and the Dutch at the battle of Liaoluo bay and fort zeelandia and they used cannons and guns you morons.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >asserted the Chinese didn't ACKSHUALLY invented gunpowder
    >got btfo'd because no argument
    >resort to "weeeellll it's obvious china never invented anything because I say so"
    History board lel

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you got btfo, its clear evidence only exists after Bacon.
      Evidence before Bacon is dubious

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better anon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Only according to you

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          we are dealing with people that claim they invented trains, computers etc.

          do you really think they invented gunpowder? or are they just saying they did.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >we are dealing with people that claim they invented trains, computers etc.
            again we're talking about china in this thread not india

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Kys paki. Other people might think you're Chinese, but I know you're just a Paki defending your Chink masters.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bring your bullshit to IQfy or something.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >do you really think they invented gunpowder? or are they just saying they did.
            Yes. Just because europeans claimed they invented gunpowder doesn't mean I won't believe them if they claim to have invented steam engine. Some schizos aren't worth the time

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Tell me about Manchu invasion.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Europeans obviously invented gunpowder thats why they conquered the world with it.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    their intelligence is focused and stifled by a disposition toward conforming to social and political norms.
    They also do not have frequent wars, they instead have large scale wars every other generation.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Now post Karayuki rape pasta, my chink pet.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    purely material reasons. China was advanced more than Europe during era of Ming, both technologically and economically. However out of luck, Europeans would be able to discover Americas and discovery of Americas made Europe a massive stash of gold so much that they caused a global inflation by having too much gold.
    Too much riches equals power. Durign late mediev and early years of renaissance, Europe advanced in armory, wrt, architectur and weapons thanks to be ability to fund these. The buildup from medieval era, scientific thought originated from so called "dark ages", helped this too.
    In 1700s, Europe already was a global power hub and by time it over shadowed Africa and Asia when it ws the axtual opposite during 1300s

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Italy was richer than China already in the middle ages. Europe in general had a much higher standard of living than China throughout history.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    if you believe any Chinese versions of history you are a fool.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      whose version should I believe, yours?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Except in european's and middle easterners version of history gunpowder was still imvented by china

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        lies, its only mentioned in the 1600s hundreds of years after it was invented in Europe.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >China
      >history
      pick one

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        China.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    GDP per capita. Obviously China has more people, but Europe certainly wasn't poor. By 1400 CE the leading Western European countries were all richer than China.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Western Europe always led China. It's just cope from Chinese. We wuzz richer 1000 years ago. Source? Just accept it or you're rayciss.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Western cucks always overrated the Chinese. They were more advanced than the West for a very short time. Early middle ages or so. By 1000 CE Europeans already caught up with them and by 1600 they were more advanced in virtually every field.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >By 1000 CE Europeans already caught up with them and by 1600 they were more advanced in virtually every field.

      That's not how technology works.

      as mentioned

      >Chinese already invented and developed muzzle loading cast iron cannons. Europeans didn't develop cast iron until after this, so Europeans were forced to use wrought iron breech loading cannon instead of muzzle loading cast iron cannons since bronze was expensive.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongyipao

      >Chinese gunsmiths continued to modify "red barbarian" cannons after they entered the Ming arsenal, and eventually improved upon them by applying native casting techniques to their design. In 1642, Ming foundries merged their own casting technology with European cannon designs to create a distinctive cannon known as the "Dingliao grand general." Through combining the advanced cast-iron technique of southern China and the iron-bronze composite barrels invented in northern China, the Dingliao grand general cannons exemplified the best of both iron and bronze cannon designs. Unlike traditional iron and bronze cannons, the Dingliao grand general's inner barrel was made of iron, while the exterior of brass.[1][12]

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >By 1000 CE Europeans already caught up with them and by 1600 they were more advanced in virtually every field.

      That's not how technology works.

      as mentioned

      >Chinese already invented and developed muzzle loading cast iron cannons. Europeans didn't develop cast iron until after this, so Europeans were forced to use wrought iron breech loading cannon instead of muzzle loading cast iron cannons since bronze was expensive.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongyipao

      >Chinese gunsmiths continued to modify "red barbarian" cannons after they entered the Ming arsenal, and eventually improved upon them by applying native casting techniques to their design. In 1642, Ming foundries merged their own casting technology with European cannon designs to create a distinctive cannon known as the "Dingliao grand general." Through combining the advanced cast-iron technique of southern China and the iron-bronze composite barrels invented in northern China, the Dingliao grand general cannons exemplified the best of both iron and bronze cannon designs. Unlike traditional iron and bronze cannons, the Dingliao grand general's inner barrel was made of iron, while the exterior of brass.[1][12]

      >The resulting bronze-iron composite cannons were superior to iron or bronze cannons in many respects. They were lighter, stronger, longer lasting, and able to withstand more intensive explosive pressure. Chinese artisans also experimented with other variants such as cannons featuring wrought iron cores with cast iron exteriors. While inferior to their bronze-iron counterparts, these were considerably cheaper and more durable than standard iron cannons. Both types were met with success and were considered "among the best in the world"[13] during the 17th century. The Chinese composite metal casting technique was effective enough that Portuguese imperial officials sought to employ Chinese gunsmiths for their cannon foundries in Goa, so that they could impart their methods for Portuguese weapons manufacturing.[13] According to the soldier Albrecht Herport, who fought for the Dutch at the Siege of Fort Zeelandia, the Chinese "know how to make very effective guns and cannons, so that it’s scarcely possible to find their equal elsewhere."[14]

      Technology doesn't come in a package. Chinese had cast iron muzzle loading cannon before Europeans but Europeans used the inferior wrought iron to make breech loaders to compensate.

      Then when Europeans developed more advanced muzzle loading cannon after getting cast iron, Chinese developed composite metal muzzle loaders to improve on it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        lol
        >muh cannons
        I'm talking about the overall picture. Science, art, technology, standard of living - Europeans absolutely mogged everyone since the 16-17th century.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >a chang using wikipedia (invented by white people) to spread chink propaganda

    Kek

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >wikipedia (invented by white people)
      google was based on pagerank, an algorithm based on rankdex, invented by li yanhong, the founder of baidu. google ripped off baidu

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ok Chang.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hey what's going on here?

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Church built universities all over Europe thus propelling those nations above all civilizations that ever existed.
    This happened because the ways of God are seen as logic and inteligible, so there was a drive to understand God and creation through intelectual pursuits.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What a bunch of nonsense. Europe is far behind China and falling even farther behind. Have some humility and try to catch up before we all become colonies as a result of the arrogance people like you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This statement makes no sense in any logical person's mind.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It does. They're outcompeting us. You can be willfully blind if you want, but that's only going to accelerate our decline.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            reported for being a moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Merely saying we should try to be more competitive is so triggering that you have to report me? Is this what Western civilization's fallen to?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        When did the level of this board sink to the levels of your post?

        What they mentioned some traditional gods so they're pagan? There are pagan statues in the Vatican as well. So what?
        [...]
        How is communism pagan? It's the highest form of liberal Judeo-Christianity.

        When did the level of this board sink to the levels of your post?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      /thread

      Pagan China was more advanced than pagan Europe.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        China hasn't been pagan for thousands of years.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          When did the level of this board sink to the levels of your post?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Communism - none of these are pagan.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I...

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What they mentioned some traditional gods so they're pagan? There are pagan statues in the Vatican as well. So what?

            >communism
            >not pagan
            I'll grant you some of that philosophy can be classified as not pagan given that they talk of unity of god(heavens)

            How is communism pagan? It's the highest form of liberal Judeo-Christianity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not responding to someone as stupid as you. Go study before you're talking to strangers on the internet

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Which part of the truth that I spoke triggered you?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            When did the level of this board sink to the levels of your post?

            someone report him

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It seems like things really have fallen. No one is responding and everyone's acting triggered instead.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            reported. you do not belong on a history board.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If Asians are so smart, how come they've hardly invented anything or progressed in science compared to Europeans, especially considering they've had a much greater population than Europe throughout history? It seems like even the few notable inventions they have, such as the compass and gunpowder, were not fully exploited by them and only Europeans realized the full potential of these technologies.
            Such a high quality question on this "history" board. Why don't you report him as well?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >communism
            >not pagan
            I'll grant you some of that philosophy can be classified as not pagan given that they talk of unity of god(heavens)

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    purely socioeconomic factors

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Changs tongue my anus.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > especially considering they've had a much greater population than Europe throughout history?

    That is actually a myth.
    They had comparable populations for most of history.
    The Roman Empire actually had a larger population while it was whole than dynastic China, and Rome as a city was much larger than any Chinese city until the 4th century AD.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *