I was talking about if they were to realistically meet each other (assuming that was possible) that's probably the situation it would be.
In spite of being one of the longest-lived dynasties that the world has ever seen, the Zhou Dynasty actually has pretty sketchy military records with respect to technology. http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=41&catid=2&subcatid=2 http://etcweb.princeton.edu/asianart/timeperiod_china.jsp?ctry=China&pd=Shang|Zhou Here are some sites that I found so far. The first I am not too sure about, but the second seems credible. All they mention in the way of military tech is that by the seventh century, the Chinese were using iron in both military and farming. Such would be a huge boon to them against the Greeks, who used mostly bronze and such, but the details are too sketchy to determine to what extent they were used and what capacity [i.e., by 'in military', do they mean weapons only or does it include vast amounts iron armor and sheilds]. http://spice.stanford.edu/docs/117 This does not refer directly to the Zhou Dynasty, but rather the one that was toppled to create the Zhou Dynasty. Given that the information on the Shang Dynasty is sketchy, historians [such as in the second of the above links] sometimes just merge them into one. From this Dynasty, we can take the military advancements that they came up with into consideration. Bronze weapons and chariots mostly. We can infer of course, given the time period, that they had extensive knowledge of how to wage warfare given the popularity of Sun Tzu's Art of War scrolls, but we cannot really pin down any single, decisive doctrine. Given this, I recommend that, if you all insist on shifting the time period of the battle on the Chinese side, to shift it instead to the Warring States period, which has clearer records and immediately followed the Zhou Dynasty. Though, of course, some historians include the Warring States period to be part of the Zhou Dynasty period, so I might include the information anyways.
Though I should have clarified, I meant for the Zhou Dynasty to include the Warring States period, as the there wasn't a whole lot of war before then. You know, because it was unified. But let's make it even more interesting, how about a Macedonian Army led by Alexander the Great versus a Warring States era Chinese Army led Sun Tzu? Again, equally sized, and meeting on even grounds in an open field. My money's on Alex.
That is a difficult one. And I am not sure if Alexander's time matched up with the Warring States period. In this case, one has to examine the abilities of Sun Tzu as they are known. Knowledge of what is the correct thing to do in battle and applying it can be two different matters entirely. I am not sure if records of his actual military accomplishments remain.
I saw a documentary once about his badass accomplishments, surely a military force to be feared, and definitely bite to his bark, but his strategies often involved multiple armies and he was more for planning the grand strategy than leading individual battles. But surely he got there by leading individual armies, but Alexander had to be better at it.
Well the Ming wins becouse well, it was a thousand years older. But if the greeks unite and have a massive united army with huge amounts of greek fire and spartans they have a bigger chance of winning battles but wars are an other thing.
Greeks never had greek fire. That was a Byzantine thing. That was around the Sui and Tang Dynasties approximately a millenia before the Ming.
Romans from 27 BC - AD 476 [West] / AD 1453 [East] Three Kingdoms from 220 - 265 AD Kind of, sort of, but not really. Chinese Dynasties
In 200 AD the romans were still one nation ruled by the emperors still. that is like the pinnicle of there power.
But it wouldn't do well as a comparison on the Chinese end since the Chinese would not have been in a position to fight. In this case, you could take your pick of at least four other dynasties rather than in the midst of a civil war in China. Choosing this period, of Roman height, is blatently favoring the Romans and dismissing the periods that would be more logical to choose as to make for a relatively even debate.
This is just as plain retarded as that one show from the History channel that isn't really History but panders to 13 year old boys. I think it's called Deadliest Warrior. That makes me sick to my stomach. The History channel hasn't made a proper documentary since that one called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and they made very little before that for close to a year. It really is sad when you know that the History channel isn't the History channel anymore. I remember watching that one documentary series called "Battlefield", that was what History is supposed to be. But not anymore. And it's your fucking fault. Give me back my History channel.
The question is so retarded that you should all be ashamed for answering it. And playing paradox games or Total War does not make you knowledgeable about military history or anything of the sort. Also, this definitely doesn't belong in the historical events section.
I'm sure it was on Bravo or the likes. It has, however, had an increasingly adverse effect on the way that documentaries are presented now-a-days. They're all American and shit. It's absolutely dreadful. All I need to do is take away a capital letter: give me back my history documentaries. You guys ruined it for everybody. You and your shitty lumberjacks and bikers.
I am inclined to agree. Deadliest Warrior is just one of many terrible American shows that try to present "history".
