The Greeks were good in philosophy but the Chinese, in my prespective, had more scientific research. some invetions were gunpowder, compass, paper, earth quake meter, copying technique.
In classical age, Greeks definitely. Chinese had many inventions, but not in the classical age timeframe.
As for scientific research... I don't think that was established in the West before the Alexandrine school and much later in China. It's still the Greeks, but not in the classical age (they lacked a crucial part of the "scientific method", the experiment/verification process, even though they excelled at the theoretical approach) only in the days of the Alexandrine school (the generation of early scientists blooming in the famous Alexandrian Library).
If we talk about inventions only, there are far more contestants than just Greek and China. Romans were great inventors, Sumerians and Egyptians long before them also.
But they lacked the theoretical and scientific, approach of the Greeks. They were more empiricists than anything else. But that didn't hinder the mesopotamian cultures to discover great theoretical concepts like the Pi number or an early form of the Pythagorean theorem.
The Indians were great thinkers, as well.
P.S. forgot to add something to clear up a confusing fact: the ancient Greek term philosophy (love for wisdom?) as used in antiquity, is in all practical ways synonumous to our term "Science". So, if you say that Greeks invented philosophy it's like stating that they invented science. Which, in a way, is correct, concept-wise though. Practically, many more cultures long before the classical Greeks, have practiced science. They just didn't name it
Gunpowder was invented in China during Han dynasty (209 BC - 220 AD)
Paper was an invention in China in Han dynasty as well.
Many Chinese inventions such as crossbows were already widely used in Spring and Autman period (770 bc - 483 bc).
The following is from warhead's information:
Sun Bing's military manual written in 340 b.c. and unearthed in 1972 shows a number of deployments.
Here are some described:
The Wu - five-man squad in line astern.
The Dui - 10 Wu in line abreast (5 men deep and 10 across) 50 men
The Bo - Two Dui in line abreast (5 men deep and 20 across) or line astern (a square 10 men deep and 10 across) 100 men
The Qu - Two Bo in line abreast (5 men deep and 40 across) or line astern (20 men deep and 10 across) 200 men
The Square - made up of several rows of Qu, with the HQ in the middle of the rear row. Not necessarily a true square, can be rectangular. A favourite tactic was to place stronger Qu on the flanks, and then lure the enemy to attack the centre and be outflanked.
The Circle Բ - a Qu reformed into a ring, with the HQ protected within it. A highly defensive formation.
Dispersed Formation - increasing the distance between individual Qu in a square, so as to mislead the enemy or divide his forces.
Close Formation - decreasing the distance between individual Qu in a square, for strength in close-quarter fighting.
The Awl (zhui)֮ - A wedge (triangle with one point facing forward), a highly offensive formation. Also known in later history as the Male Formation (pin) (you'll see why later).
The Wild-Goose-Flight Formation (yan)֮ - A V-formation with two wings for enveloping the enemy and the HQ in the middle. Or an inverted-V for a defensive formation that can quickly be converted to offensive wedge. The V-formation can also be modified into a flattened U known as the Basket Formation (ji) or Female Formation ĵ(mu), for luring enemy wedges into the centre and then enveloping them.
The Hook Formation ֮ - A line abreast with the two ends sloping inwards to avoid being flanked. Probably most suitable for archers or crossbowmen.
Then there are unorthodox formations such as the Bagua which is a highly flexible formation with high degree of manuvre.
China had a more advanced technology.
By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products. The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. The use of cast iron was, unfortunately, introduced in Europe largely for the production of cannon; Henry VII constructed the first blast furnaces in England. The replacement of the bloom furnace with the blast furnace, increased productivity in the English iron industry 15-fold. The Chinese were able to manufacture superior tools, that the more primitive European metallurgy was incapable of producing, which led to a substantial advance in productivity throughout the entire economy. As early as the Third Century B.C., the state of Qin appointed government officials to supervise the iron industry, and penalize manufacturers who produced substandard products. The Han Dynasty nationalized all cast-iron manufacture in 119 B.C. Around that time, there were 46 imperial Iron Casting Bureaus throughout the country, with government officials insuring that cast-iron tools were widely available. This included cast-iron plowshares, iron hoes, iron knives, axes, chisels, saws and awls, cast-iron pots, and even toys.
The Chinese also developed methods for the manufacture of steel that were only matched in the West, in the recent period. The characteristics of iron alloys are related to the carbon content. Cast iron generally has a high carbon content, which makes it strong, but brittle. Steel, which is an alloy of iron with a low carbon content, is strong and more durable. The use of steel in agricultural implements was introduced, on a wide scale, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). This led to a further improvement in productivity.
In the Second Century B.C., the Chinese developed what became known in the West as the Bessemer process. They developed a method for converting cast iron into steel, by blowing air on the molten metal, which reduced the carbon content. In 1845, William Kelly brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky, and learned this method from them, for which he received an American patent. However, he went bankrupt, and his claims were made over to the German, Bessemer, who had also developed a similar process.
The Chinese also had superior weapons and tools:
Pilum is a primitive weapon for limitd throwing power. With the presense of crossbow, their is noneed for weapons of inferior power. As for pavises, the warring state shield industry was highly advanced, the shields are made in fine hide along with maximu care, the rules were stric, if rat bitten marks were found, the shield carers are severely punished. Shields are made through careful calculation of the time in drying the wood and hide to maximize defense power. And designed in such shape to deflect missiles.
Sun Zhi lived in 5th century BC during the Spring and Autumn peiord (2 hundred years before Alexander) but his war mannual was widely studied during warring state period of China.
Coolstorm, is this going to evolve into another "the Chinese are better than anyone" type of thread? Because if it is, I honestly don't want to have anything to do with.
As to the subject of this thread, what excactly do you define "science"? Because battle formations (2/3 of your post) is definitely not "science". Since we are talking about scientific research, it's rather peculiar to refer to military manuals, formations, and such.
The Greeks formulated the whole theory of "science", which is a huge step forward in science nevertheless. I don't think China, besides practical implementation of things, had any theoriticists in the calibre of Aristotle, or any working scientists in the league of an Archimedes or a Hero.
I don't doubt the exceptional progress conducted in areas of China throughout the ages, but the blast furnace alone doesn't qualify the Chinese as superior scientists to the Greeks, don't you agree?
A rundown by invention:
Greeks
- Science
- Acoustics
- Anchor
- Astrolabe
- Automata (that is, primitive machines)
- Bricks
- Bucket chain
- Caltrops
- camera obscura
- catalog of books
- catapult
- chewing gum
- city planning
- coin automate
- compound pulley
- computing device
- cranes
- drydock
- dice
- dioptra
- fire extinction machine
- flame thrower
- floating bridge (pontoon bridge)
- hopper rubbers
- hydravlis
- terra cotta lamps
- lever
- lighthouse
- musical notation
- odometer
- parchment
- piston
- Alarm clock
...and many others, including the famous inventions by Archimedes.
Chinese
- Fireworks
- wheelbarrow
- Earthquake weathercock
- compass
- spaghetti
- fan
- kites
- bamboo working
- iron casting
- harnessing animals
- advanced navigation
- Abacus
- clock
- rudder
- planetarium
- anesthetic
- paper
- printing
- books
- umbrella
And many, many others
(both lists from the links I provided in the previous post)
What is my point? They were both great inventors, but the Chinese have more inventions relative to warfare and practical everyday use, while the Greeks have more sophisticated devices, but not practically useful all the times.
Note though that the Greek inventions date up to the 1st century AD, while the Chinese inventions mentioned in the list date up to the 10the century AD.
"(both lists from the links I provided in the previous post)
What is my point? They were both great inventors, but the Chinese have more inventions relative to warfare and practical everyday use, while the Greeks have more sophisticated devices, but not practically useful all the times.
Note though that the Greek inventions date up to the 1st century AD, while the Chinese inventions mentioned in the list date up to the 10the century AD."
Many of the Chinese inventions you listed actually could date up to Spring and Autumn period (770 bc - 483 bc).
For example, gunpowder was an invention of Han dynasty (209 bc - 220 ad).
Paper was also in use during the Han dynasty.
I absolutely don't think that Chinese civilization was better than anyone else's but I also disagree that the Greek inventions came before the Chinese. The fact is both were great civilizations and both had just as many inventions in ancient time.
Talking about science and the planning of government and cities, the Chinese came up with the Calendar, the study of the universe, their own version of computing device, Taoism, Confucianism, compass was a Chin invention (Chin state established in Eastern Chou period (1020 bc - 221 bc) Chin dynasty (221 bc - 208 bc)) So saying that the Chinese inventions only dated up to 10 th century AD is absolutely wrong.
I think both Greek and Chinese were great civilization. But, I disagree with you saying that the Greek were more ancient and had more ancient inventions.
coolstorm, the classical age is dated from 400BC~200 AD.Yes, China was
advanced, but they did not have firm scientific foundation for the
later modern science. For example, geometry was particurly weak in
Chinese mathematic, and Chinese did not have a very systematic
scientific foundation as that of Greece (Mohist did try to formulate a
very similar Greek-like natural science interpretation, but it lost its
influence at end of Warring States). But again, both civilizations
failed to give brith of modern science, instead it was Europeans who
did it (with the help of earlier Arabian' work of course). You can be
patrotic about being Chinese but dont be exaggerate their achivement as
it seems they are simply GREAT in every era. And I dont think thats a
wise way to let people to respect Chinese culture, but disgust it. Ru
guo ni you rang da jia xiang xin zhong guo de chen jiou, ni bi shu rang
da jia zhuen jing zhong guo de nien hang (if you know how to read
Chinese, which i believe you can).
From a pre-Columbian-American centric view, it was the Mayans and not
the Incas who first came up with chewing gum, and ultimatly their
varient that would become the most popular one, thanks American GIs.
"Ru guo ni you rang da jia xiang xin zhong guo de chen jiou, ni bi shu rang da jia zhuen jing zhong guo de nien hang (if you know how to read Chinese, which i believe you can)."
Infact, I can't read a single word of this.
I can read Chinese but not ping ying. I am really bad with ping ying especially the mandarin romanization as it is not my mother touque.
If you could put that in written form or English, it would be great.
"You can be patrotic about being Chinese but dont be exaggerate their achivement as it seems they are simply GREAT in every era."
I actually think that Chinese civilization entered a dark age after mid Ming.
I don't think that the Chinese did well in every era but however during the warring state period and the classical age as you mentioned, China definitely had a firm scientific foundation. I agree that the Greeks were excellent in Math, philosophy... etc. I am not undervaluating their acheivements. However, I am not exaggerating Chinese achievements either.
Other than saying that I am exagerating Chinese achievements, would you also kindly list anything from my post that you find exaggerating and not based upon the truth.
Please also note that many technologies that western Europeans mastered from central Asia were originally developed in China. Gunpowder, scope, and compass are some examples.
What you mentioned were about inventions and technology, but the
discussion was about scientific research. If you wanted to point out
Chinese concept of "science", you have to give examples of Chinese
interpretaion of the natural world. For example, I pointed out Mohist's
concept of natural physics (light, and some mechanical force, such as
primitive of acknowledge of Newton first law: F=ma), but you also have
to criticize Mohists' lack of formulas to support their findings as in
most of "Chinese science". On the other, one must also acknowledge
Chinese view of universe was biological, whereas Greeks' were
mechanical and methmatical (the fundationa of modern science). That is
how you write a good anaysis of science development in both worlds,
Greece and China, without creating a biased view on it.
It is extremly difficult to consider non-Western traditions in term of
science, as the concept "science" is purely a modern one (Chinese do
not possess the "idea of science" until 19th century when they
encounter Western works on science, nor did ancient Greeks capable of
doing so). Therefore people have to be
careful when they believe certain civilizatoins pose similarities to
the modern one. Instead, we should rather consider the fact that
whether this particular civilization did proceed a "system" (simple
example of analysis: if x=y, y=z, then we can concluded x=z, Chinese
logists did reached to the second part, but not the third stage) of
anayzing
their surrouding eventhough they produced a complete different model of
"science".
I hope you guys are not gonna throw things at me for saying this: define science.
I've once read this: the Chinese were great sociologists, the Greeks were great naturalists, and Indians were greak psychologists, if I remember what I read correctly. Oversimplification of course, but I think we can somewhat identify the strenghts of each scientific culture.
the beginning stage of the Chinese classical era was also one of the most chaotic one. One way to help understand the 100 schools (in reality there were less than 30. one hundred is another way of saying "a lot.") suddenly blosoming in classical China (circa 400 BC - 200 AD, as Kids suggested,) one must realize the issues they were facing. All of these schools were essentially trying to solve a big dilemma: the Zhou regime had waned, and the many different states were competing for supremacy. Zhou was essentially a kind of "overlord" state over, at one point 800 states. With the collapse of the Zhou regime, these states competed for supremacy to replace Zhou. By the time of the Spring and Autum era, there were a hundred something left; by the time of the Warring States era, only 13 are left, and of which only 7 were real powers. What you can expect from this is a lot of war and chaos.
It must've been a frightening time: wars went from chivalrous contest involving thousands that last about a day in the Spring and Autumn era to the large scale conquest of hundreds of thousands soliders on each side in the Warring State era. Such scholars as Confucius and Lao Tzu were ardently trying to solve a problem facing them everyday. Confucianism suggests a system of rituals and propriety, proper relations, compassionate rulers, and well educated leaders as the solution. Taoism suggests escapism from mundanity and a lack of interference from the state. Legalism suggests clear laws and absolute state power to enforce them. Mohism suggests adamant pacificism and that everyone loves everyone else equally. All other schools, including schools of diplomacy and military, all aimed at solving social unrest in one way or another.
After first two hundred years of classical era, China was united, then disunited after a decade or so, and reunited again around 200 B.C. Thus begun a peaceful stage of classicism, one where Confucianism reigned supreme, with Taoism still studied, and all the other schools became integrated with them one way or the other, while Buddhism was beginning to be known in China. Perhaps the climates of other cultures, such as Greeks and Indians, also induced them to have different emphasis of science, but I'd leave that question to others.
Goodness, I have written an extremely lenghty and detailed post about the cultural differences between East and West, and I did something silly and lost it... damned. I can't write this again, not now.
Congratulations to Mengtze, though. His post is very good.
From a pre-Columbian-American centric view, it was the Mayans and not
the Incas who first came up with chewing gum, and ultimatly their
varient that would become the most popular one, thanks American GIs.
Depends on what you mean with chewing gum - stone age people used (spiced) resin as chewing gum thousands of years ago..
Today, we ask how the Chinese managed to hide their candle under a bushel. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.
Modern pharmacology had to wait for biochemistry. Without it, all we could do was play around with herbs and hope for the best, right? Well, maybe not. Since the early days of Rome, Chinese doctors have done astonishing things with medicine and anatomy.
While Rome fought the last Punic War in the 2nd century BC, Chinese doctors were learning that blood recirculates and that it's refreshed in the lungs. Europe didn't begin to realize that until the 1500s. William Harvey finally got it straight in 1628. The Chinese also calculated that blood recirculates every 30 minutes. They got that figure by dissecting bodies, measuring the length of blood vessels, and making dubious assumptions. The correct value is more like 30 seconds. But -- Harvey also thought it took 30 minutes.
As the Punic wars ended, the Chinese had also begun extracting male and female hormones from urine. They did that by evaporating the liquid and using sublimation to separate estrogens or androgens from the other solids. They called those hormones the "autumn mineral," because they looked like autumn frost. They used them to treat sexual dysfunction and underdeveloped sexual characteristics.
By the height of the Roman empire, the Chinese were writing about using diet to fight beriberi. It was 1900 before Western doctors realized you got beriberi by trying to subsist on white rice. If the Chinese didn't know the part about vitamin B in brown rice -- well, it was 1936 before Western doctors isolated vitamin B.
By the time of Europe's Dark Ages, the Chinese had synthesized thyroid hormone from jujube dates. They used it to treat goiters. They also controlled diabetes with the right diet. They knew diabetics should avoid starchy foods. And, when the American, Michael Katsoyannis, synthesized insulin in 1966, the irony is that Chinese scientists Zahn and Wang had synthesized it two years earlier. But Zahn and Wang got swallowed up in the Cultural Revolution. The West got the credit.
Finally, as medieval cathedrals rose in France, the Chinese were regularly inoculating themselves against smallpox.
Why did all this stay unknown in the West? Well, the language barrier went beyond words. We were put off by metaphors like autumn mineral. And the Chinese didn't have our medium of print to spread knowledge. China did have printing before the West, but with so many characters it never became a real mass medium.
So the word didn't get out. And we have, for the last 400 years, proudly reinvented idea after idea already known to the Chinese -- things already known for two millennia.
I'm John Lienhard at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.
(Theme music)
Temple, R, and Needham, J., The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science Discovery and Invention. New York: A Touchstone Book, 1989, Part 5, Medicine and Health.
I am grateful to Robert Hazlewood, UH Biology Department, for pointing out the Chinese synthesis of insulin in 1964.
Chinese also had some alchemy (thanx to those pill producing magicians who claim that they are able to produce the elixir of immortality).
And we came up with Pascal's Triangle several centuries before Pascal was born (and thus it should be named the Chinese Triangle...only I use such definition in my class and my professor allowed me to when I showed him proof). Not to mention we have a superior pi ratio of 355/113 courtesy of Ju Chongzhi.
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
And we came up with Pascal's Triangle several centuries before Pascal
was born (and thus it should be named the Chinese Triangle...only I use
such definition in my class and my professor allowed me to when I
showed him proof). Not to mention we have a superior pi ratio of
355/113 courtesy of Ju Chongzhi.
Those where not in the classical period, so they're not relavent to the
overall discussion. One was during the Yuan dynasty, I believe, and the
other 5th century AD.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum