Print Page | Close Window

Ming China versus England

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31011
Printed Date: 17-Oct-2017 at 03:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Ming China versus England
Posted By: Scheich
Subject: Ming China versus England
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2012 at 22:23
Could Ming China counquer England without involvement of an other country?

Write arguments down.

Thank You!



Replies:
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2012 at 00:05
Doubtful after the mid 1630's. Their heyday was in the initial stages of the dynasty. Their initial inclinations were to proclaim a threat from the North and not necessarily that to the west in Europe...tho it's ironic that in the south were the Emperor's felt no threat this is were they play.
Their noted agri-commercial revolutions and their interaction with the Japanese for silver and the creation of their wall in the main substantiate this. They were right... the threat was from the north and not the west so consequently this is an exercise in the hypothetical that I believe can be deal with fairly summarily.
 
Iow. There was no necessity for conflict with the West let alone England...trade was and would have been a more profitable endeavor. As England, at the point in which the traditional Ming is dated (1368-1644), had no significant interest in the region.
 


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2012 at 19:17
Even in the 1300s China wouldn't be able to conquer England. They had a great leader in the form of Edward Longshanks and longbowmen whose weapons were superior to the Chinese bows. All the archers had to do was face the Chinese at a suitable place (ideally surrounded by woods) and unleash a hail of arrows. The Chinese would be weighed down by their armor and unable to send in their cavalry due to concealed pits. The dagger-axes and spears of the footsoldiers were fearsome weapons, but, like the Scots schiltrons, the Chinese formations would have been weakened by the arrows. By the time they reach the English lines they would have to climb over sharpened stakes. The Chinese would have trouble swinging their polearms, unlike the English whose war bills had shorter handles and could be used for both hacking and stabbing


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2012 at 19:42
Even with a weak king like John, Stephen, or Edward II it's unlikely England would fall. Roads were often impassible as the cold, wet weather turned the dust to mud. If the Chinese found themselves besieging a castle the rain would ruin their bowstrings, cause their armor to rust, and lead to outbreaks of pneumonia

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2012 at 19:40
The only way the Chinese could conquer England would be if they formed an alliance with the French or Scots. Being ruled by the Ming might not be such a bad thing, especially when you take Chinese cuisine into account

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2012 at 05:32
The main problem would be how to get there. Ming China could pretty much conquer any European country if it had a land border by shear weight of numbers. Even the mighty Spanish would succumb to a 2 million strong land army, but without a land border, no.

-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: dick
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2012 at 14:52
Originally posted by Nick1986

Even in the 1300s China wouldn't be able to conquer England. They had a great leader in the form of Edward Longshanks and longbowmen whose weapons were superior to the Chinese bows. All the archers had to do was face the Chinese at a suitable place (ideally surrounded by woods) and unleash a hail of arrows. The Chinese would be weighed down by their armor and unable to send in their cavalry due to concealed pits. The dagger-axes and spears of the footsoldiers were fearsome weapons, but, like the Scots schiltrons, the Chinese formations would have been weakened by the arrows. By the time they reach the English lines they would have to climb over sharpened stakes. The Chinese would have trouble swinging their polearms, unlike the English whose war bills had shorter handles and could be used for both hacking and stabbing
The post above is full of errors. First of all, composite bows are just as good as long bows for foot archers, and better for horse archery, both of which China has. Chinese crossbows are also slightly superior to the contemporary European crossbow according to Needham's data.  The Chinese did not use dagger axe at this date, that was the Qin and Han dynasty armies. The Chinese used spearmen and heavy polearmed infantry like anyone else. European infantries of the 14th century can't even use offensive tactics without breaking their formation. If this battle took place in the late 15th century then it would be more of a fight.
 
However China will most likely fail in an invasion of England not because of the content of its army, but because of transporting a large army across the Ocean.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2012 at 19:26
I thought the longbow was superior to the crossbow, requiring years of practise and great physical strength to use? Did the Chinese have any heavily armored cavalry comparable to the medieval knight?

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: dick
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2012 at 03:39
Originally posted by Nick1986

I thought the longbow was superior to the crossbow, requiring years of practise and great physical strength to use? 
 
Each have their uses, which is why the Chinse adopted both the crossbow and the composite bow.
 
Originally posted by Nick1986

Did the Chinese have any heavily armored cavalry comparable to the medieval knight?
 
 
Yes, the Tiefuotuo of the Jurchens had two layers of armor. The Ming heavey cavalry had either mail or star scaled armor. Whats more, they are also capable of mounted archery.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2012 at 19:17
Mounted archers might be problematic, but one thing i learned was that during the crusades the Muslims' bows were only effective at close range. Peasant soldiers like the English archers wore padded leather jerkins which kept out most arrows. Disease was a much bigger killer as even a scratch could turn septic (especially since archers kept their arrows in the ground for quick access)

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2012 at 21:15
Originally posted by dick

Originally posted by Nick1986

I thought the longbow was superior to the crossbow, requiring years of practise and great physical strength to use? 
 
Each have their uses, which is why the Chinse adopted both the crossbow and the composite bow.
 
Originally posted by Nick1986

Did the Chinese have any heavily armored cavalry comparable to the medieval knight?
 
 
Yes, the Tiefuotuo of the Jurchens had two layers of armor. The Ming heavey cavalry had either mail or star scaled armor. Whats more, they are also capable of mounted archery.

How would these Chinese knights match up against their European counterparts? The European knight and his horse were well-protected by plate armor. How would the broadsword, mace, flail, battleaxe and warhammer match up against Chinese cavalry weapons?


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 12:45
No Chinese fleet can defeat and get past its English counterpart. In the 1600s their fletg was far superior in quality to China's. Almost all of China's fleets were riverine fleets.

-------------


Posted By: centralempire
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 04:17
are you kidding me??????compare china with little land country when it was on the top of its power
 
http://www.google.am/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=ming%20china&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=JbFhLqlxYDaM2M&tbnid=Ey0eEF2pBKRVMM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=%68%74%74%70%3a%2f%2f%63%6f%6d%6d%6f%6e%73%2e%77%69%6b%69%6d%65%64%69%61%2e%6f%72%67%2f%77%69%6b%69%2f%46%69%6c%65%3a%4d%69%6e%67%2d%43%68%69%6e%61%31%2e%6a%70%67&ei=eP_UUtb2LqWciAfFw4HYCQ&bvm=bv.59378465,d.dGI&psig=AFQjCNG31OIZwbm9D8gmc67YnHYGDbgTYQ&ust=1389777110117795">
 
this is the MING EMPIRE 14th century
 
 
this is KINGDOM OF ENGLAND,i am sorry,  KINGDOM
 


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 23:26
Is there a lot of bumkum here?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Emperor Edward
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2016 at 16:15
The Chinese Cav at that time were all the best of the best in their forces, they had what was caled the anti-cavlary pole arm which was four to five feet with a three feet carbon steel blade similar to the blade of a Japanese katana, each was hand made and it was said to be able to cut through the horse's head and the rider in one swoop. This was evident when one hundred of these men faced nearly two thousand men and cav and SLAUGHTERED all of them. They also had the chariot which, surprisingly had small firearms on them and bows andd arrows. The ships were also INCREDIBLY bigger than any of the European counterparts (just take a look on google images).

-------------
ALL HAIL EMPEROR EDWARD THE GREAT


Posted By: Emperor Edward
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2016 at 16:16
Originally posted by Nick1986


Originally posted by dick

Originally posted by Nick1986

I thought the longbow was superior to the crossbow, requiring years of practise and great physical strength to use? 








 

Each have their uses, which is why the Chinse adopted both the crossbow and the composite bow.

 

Originally posted by Nick1986


Did the Chinese have any heavily armored cavalry comparable to the medieval knight?
 

 

Yes, the Tiefuotuo of the Jurchens had two layers of armor. The Ming heavey cavalry had either mail or star scaled armor. Whats more, they are also capable of mounted archery.
How would these Chinese knights match up against their European counterparts? The European knight and his horse were well-protected by plate armor. How would the broadsword, mace, flail, battleaxe and warhammer match up against Chinese cavalry weapons?

The anti-cav weapon, look at the post above this one

-------------
ALL HAIL EMPEROR EDWARD THE GREAT


Posted By: Xenophon
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2017 at 04:17
I am sorry to be blunt, but this is a stupid question. No military operation is possible without logistics. Even today the supply problems of an invasion halfway around the world are immense. In the Ming period, they rendered the project impossible.

If you're an eleven year old kid, OK. You show imagination. If youy're an adult, you need to brush up on brute physical fact. Go take a long hike, one where you need to ration water and food. You may come back with some little respect for body, as opposed to mind off the leash.


-------------
Victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa catoni



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com