Comparison of the military power of ancient China and Europe

Before the Anshi Rebellion of the Tang Dynasty. It was quite dragged, but the vitality was greatly damaged after the turmoil, but it was okay to deal with the lack of gunpowder in Europe at that time. Song, it's hard to say!

Most of them will lose! Because the ruling class is extremely corrupt, and the army is too many and untrained (there are more than 1 million people), Europe is also in the feudal period, but it is miserable to have the same vigor as the Crusaders! The Song Dynasty was also the best developed weapon in the past dynasties, but it was difficult for lazy soldiers to win.

It must be stronger than Europe, and Europe has muskets for a long time, and they are not as powerful as our bows and arrows! Later the gun was developed for a long time before it surpassed ours.

If this is a comparison of various dynasties, then it should be the Southern Song Dynasty, compared to other eras, he should be regarded as the weakest, this should be no problem, that is, to compare, this should be the most important situation.

During the Song and Song dynasties, because the Song Dynasty emphasized literature over military force, the high-level did not pay attention to military development, and therefore could not recover the Central Plains.

The military of the Song Dynasty was relatively weak, when Liao, Jin, and Western Xia were tied together. This has certain historical roots.

The following militaries are relatively weak:

Western Jin Dynasty. Nan Chen.

Sui Dynasty. Later Jin.

Northern song dynasty. Southern song dynasty.

In the Qing Dynasty, thousands of foreign devils entered Beijing and burned down the Old Summer Palace, which was a great shame.

The Southern Song Dynasty was reluctant to protect itself and was unable to open up outward.

The strongest military power in ancient China should be the Yuan Dynasty:

1.During the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongolian soldiers were brave and good at fighting, and established the largest dynasty in the history of our country;

2.Mongol soldiers, Yuan expeditions to Central Asia, West Asia and even Europe, this.

Military strength is related to the state system, and every dynasty has a weak time! Every heyday is made of the people's white bones!!

Even a few strong ones, such as the Han, Tang, Ming and Qing dynasties, were quite strong in the early years, and the later ones were weak.

Introduction: Ancient cultures possess an indescribable charm. In particular, China's military command in ancient times still has a high value today.

At that time, the strength was already very high, and even the prosperous Europe could not be defeated. From all this, it can be seen that the ancient Chinese military strategists had very powerful minds. The following is a brief introduction to you, so that readers can have an understanding in advance.

First of all, it is because there were many generals in ancient China. Whether it is the early "Art of War" or his descendants. All this shows that the military planning has been very good.

And Zhuge Liang is also very common, which shows that ancient China not only had a very strong numerical advantage, but also had excellent planning ability, which was simply unattainable in Europe. Although Europe also has strong combat effectiveness, their intelligence and flexibility are far inferior to those of our ancient times, which also makes future generations admire our military achievements in history.

Secondly, in the history of our country, many new types of explosive power have been developed, and in Europe at the same time, people still used cold weapons. Therefore, if they confront each other, they simply will not be able to break through the attack of our country. Especially gunpowder in our country.

These inventions are skillful. Many of the ** that need firepower in Europe are bright and slippery and draw inspiration from gunpowder. Europe's ability to think and invent was obviously much more backward, and without the existence of gunpowder, most of the people in Europe would have to fight with their bare hands, which was obviously not advantageous in war.

Therefore, ancient Europe could not get close to the territory of its own people.

In addition, it is because there were many kings in ancient China who liked war. Whether it was the Yuan and Ming dynasties or the Qing dynasty, many emperors liked to expand their control. At this time, wars also occurred from time to time.

Especially in the Yuan Dynasty, many soldiers have set foot on the territory of Europe and beat some remote countries in Europe to a long distance, which is enough to prove that the military ability is very superior. This is also a place that Chinese people are very proud of. The reason why there is such a big gap is because industry began to appear in Europe in the last years of the Qing Dynasty.

This also allows them to develop their technology level rapidly. That's why there is such a big change.

The military strength of ancient China was particularly average, and everyone else had artillery shells, but China only had cold tools.

Ancient China had a strong military strength, but at the end of the Qing Dynasty, due to the closure of the country, the domestic economy and military development were backward.

Russia, France, England, Germany, Italy, Poland.

In the era of cold weapons, the army first compared the best equipment, and then logistics. If it encounters the army of the Roman Empire, I think that the army of Qin has a higher probability of victory. The unearthed cultural relics prove that when the Qin State destroyed the Six Kingdoms, its first-class specifications and standards were unified, and they were more standardized than the production, management and maintenance of the current PLA, so the winning rate was large.

This is really not comparable, and it is difficult to say. After all, one country, one army, but at different times it was completely two manifestations. Originally, it was an army, but it was just a way of social organization.

What really fights is the foundation of the two countries and the comprehensive national strength. If your country is in the elite and the army is in the elite, it is actually useless.

With the exception of the Manchu dynasty, other dynasties (including China during the Mongol Empire) were able to overthrow Europe.

There is no comparison, it is not a level, simply make a comparison of the Han army, the Tang army, the Xiongnu, the Turkic Rome.

Anyone who knows a thing or two about history knows it.

In fact, we have been inferior to others since ancient times, this is a fact, China pushes its own history all day long, and I wish it could be said that it is the most powerful country in the universe.

Without taking into account geographical isolation and army logistics, 1Alexander's Macedonian expeditionary force finished destroying the Qin army without suspense.

2.The Han Dynasty and Rome should be evenly matched in terms of national strength alone. However, the Han Dynasty has no remaining tactical data, so it is impossible to speculate on the specific military level of the Han army.

The Roman legions' ** equipment and soldier armor rate were a grade higher than that of the Han army, and the number of professional armies on both sides was roughly the same.

In any country other than Rome, the Han Dynasty had no suspense to crush it, and the reverse is also true. The countries I am talking about here also include the Huns.

3.The power of the country at the height of the Tang Dynasty was unique in the world. The Tang army was slightly stronger than the Tibetan army, probably comparable to the Macedonian period of the Eastern Roman Dynasty.

4.The army of the Song Dynasty was generally scumbag like shit. The army of the founding period of the Two Song Dynasty can also be seen, which is roughly the average level, and the combat effectiveness was quickly lost.

5.The military strength of the early Ming Dynasty was acceptable, and it was at the level of the upper class in the world. In the late Ming Dynasty, except for a few border troops, they were also scum, like shit, and they may not be as good as the Song army. In the late Ming Dynasty, both the equipment and tactical level had lagged behind the West to a large extent.

6.Before the First Sino-Japanese War, the Eight Banners Army was always the strongest army in Asia, and its combat effectiveness was maintained very well. In the early Qing Dynasty, compared with other countries in the world, the military level was roughly the same level as that of Turkey after its decline, and slightly weaker than that of Russia.

After the Qianlong Dynasty, the West began the industrial revolution, and the Qing Dynasty directly fell into the stream.

If you want to test the military strength of the East and the West, Mongolia is a good litmus test, because it has fought both the East and the West, and it is the same period.

So look at the era of Genghis Khan, Genghis Khan fought in the west until the edge of the Mediterranean Sea to occupy the rising power of Khorezm, Genghis Khan said that it was easy to add, and then look at the east at the door of the political corruption and weakening of the Jin State kicked the door, and it couldn't move. Xiaobing said: The Great Khan can't be so neat, why don't we change our thinking?

Great Khan: Alright, attack Western Xia. As a result, before the Western Xia was defeated, the Great Khan hung up first.

Think about the so-called "rising power" Khorezm, and then look at the Western Xia where rabbits don't, hehe.

Looking at the post-Genghis Khan era, the Western 2w Mongolia vs 60w fighting nation Russia swept and swept across the Eastern European Plain, and the commander of the Mongolian Western Expedition said: "It's quite easy and easy, brothers continue to attack." Suddenly, the herald reported that "the Great Khan is hanging", "Why is the Great Khan hanging again", "The resistance of the Song army is too fierce, and the Great Khan wants to come to the battle in person to boost the morale of our army..." Do you need me to say more about the comparison of strength?

Regardless of the terrain factor, Qin has a million troops, a group of people with great war potential, after all, the Warring States have been fighting for hundreds of years, and it feels like people are born to cut people. Needless to say, Han is still hanging, whether it is military or logistics (there is no way for the Chinese), Tang I have not studied, in my heart there is Qin Hanqiang.

Qin and Han vs Rome. The biggest feature of the Qin army is that the opponent first releases the arrow array. And Roman long-range** is often a throwing spear.

Therefore, at a distance, the Qin army has the advantage. But in close combat, approaching the Romans had better physical fitness, although the Qin army had the spirit of Chinese sacrifice that even the West is afraid of now, I am afraid it will be difficult to take, you must know that Rome is out of the Colosseum... Also, don't ignore the Spartans ...

Because the 300 warriors of Sparta are a historical fact after all...

"Put two countries together", although the question is a bit true, then it is directly better than the economy, the economy is sufficient, there is a basis to support the war, the victory or defeat of the ancient war is mostly related to geographical advantages, excluding geographical restrictions, then there is only an economy that supports the foundation of the war. And such a comparison has no technical content at all.

During the time of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, the Han Dynasty defeated the Xiongnu, more than 700 miles north of the desert, the Xiongnu were forced to move westward, Attila, the whip of God, occupied South Russia, defeated the Germans, the Germans defeated the Caucasus, the Caucasians defeated the Goths, and the Goths destroyed Western Rome. In that era, you said that a defeated general's subordinate of our defeated subordinate would fight with us in the future, what are the odds of winning?

I don't know, I haven't fought it, but the war in the West is really too small in scale and too weak in mobilization. Of course, the Sui Dynasty was the heyday of ancient China, the war between Carthage and the Roman Republic, the mobilization scale of the Roman Republic was 200,000, and there was no larger mobilization scale.

It's hard to say in the Qin period, but the Han Dynasty was about five or five open... After that, the national war was basically over...

The Arab Empire and the Don fought once, and the Don lost.

This is not easy to say, it can be said that each has its own merits, and it is complicated to combine various factors. China defeated the powerful Xiongnu and Turks during the Han and Tang dynasties, and its military strength was not bad. The West does not know much about it, and this is a very complicated subject, and it is necessary to elaborate on various factors, and it is difficult to explain it in one or two sentences.

All I saw was a pile of shit downstairs.

It should be that China will win, it seems that someone has studied this comparison

It should be Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands that are the strongest.

As for the weakest countries, it was the embryonic period of capitalism, and the countries of Western Europe were expanding outward, so it was hard to tell the difference.

It is difficult to say about the different periods, and it is difficult to say ...... without confrontation in the same period

It depends on the time period from Rome after BC to Mongolia in the century.

Genghis Khan's Mongol army, which fought all the way to Western Europe, was invincible.