Yeah, always check if males working in jobs where they have access to highly confidential information are being laid. Otherwise do not appoint them.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
None of the historical Chinese dynasties outside of maybe the Qin had great standing armies and the blame for that has to do with the life style of native Chinese vs. "barbarians." The best weapons in the world can't make up for the fact that "barbarians" were raised from birth in violent, chaotic environments where it was kill or be killed. Nurhaci was 23 when he became chieftain of his tribe, 25 when he launched his first war, and 34 when he crushed his other Jurchen enemies and became de facto ruler.
By contrast, the average Chinese would be most unfortunate to see battle even once during his entire life, and maintaining a large standing army was next to impossible so the vast majority of soldiers were drafted farm boys with a few months of basic training. Combined with the lack of horses and riding skills - again due to life style - it's no surprise that Chinese armies punched below their weight the vast majority of times vs. the "barbarians" even with superior equipment; and even less of a surprise that the Warring States armies fared relatively better than later Chinese dynasties, since during the Warring States, far more Chinese actually grew up fighting than farming.
Any way, we don't live in the age of farmers vs. "barbarians" any more. Industrialized armies all tend to be drawn from the same sort of population - sedentary civilians - so it actually is about technology, economy, and organizational competence these days.
Last edited:
Brazil's food production capacity increased rapidly. By the end of this year it will be capable of covering all soybeans imports of China. China can drastically reduce imports from countries like Canada, US and Australia by promoting development of Brazilian and Russian commodities. Brazilian soybean is a massive success story. Knowing China's paramount policy of supplier diversity, they won't full end imports from Australia, etc though.
D
Deleted member 23272
Guest
Is that really the case? The Song was notable in that it lost against barbarian tribes even when it was at the zenith of its power precisely because of its poor policy with respect to military leadership. Every other time that China lost battles or even parts of the country to barbarian tribes, it was already in a state of decline or weak government like the Jin Dynasty. Whenever the country was united and strong, they usually performed well against enemies whether it was the Han or Tang against the Xiongnu or Gokturks, or even the Ming against the Mongol Tribes outside of the Tumu crisis.
I find that China with such a long history has its failures more amplified, compared to the Romans where they had their moment and then when it came crashing down that it was it for them.
Acts like a joke, gets treated like a joke.
Guy picked the wrong joint thinking they'd pander to his entitled butt. Would've had better luck finding a job at the White
Edit: Added spoiler tag as requested.
Last edited:
Well, although the settled farming society has its inherite disadvantages like you said, I can't say that life style of settled farming is much of a draw back when properly addressed. For example, Han and Tang had many state owned horse breeding ground near the frontier regions. Whoever raised the horses were certainly good at riding them just like the nomads. Most Chinese dynasties also had the system of hereditary military system such as 府兵 in Tang, 军屯 in Han, the banner men in Qing. These population spent much more time in military excersize besides farming, they don't pay tax or crops except anything enough to feed themselves, pretty much like the nomads spending time in hurding their livestocks.
The result is that many dynasties did very well against "barbarians". Han and Tang's standing armies weren't big but very competent, they annialated the states of Xiongnu and Turks, especially Xionnu disapeared as an entity all together. If you read the record of those expedition of Han and Tang, you will find that their numbers were only higher than their oponents because they had people to transport food, while the nomads'food (live stocks) had legs. One can't really use that number difference to judge the fighting strength.
What made Song standing out is 1 they lost the horse breeding ground, therefor lost mobility and speed, 2 very bad administration and deep mistrust of military due to the fact that the dynasty was founded by military coup. The 2nd point is the decisive factor as the soldiers were poorly treated (just better than criminal), the generals feared their own emperors than the enemis. The 1st point was much less of an issue compared to the 2nd as Ming dynasty's funding showed. Ming dynasty started from the south just like Song without many horses and yet overthrown Yuan who still held most of the cavalry forces. Ming was even able to sack Karakorum, the capital of Northern Yuan.
The conclusion is that although number and quality of arms, life-style do play important roles, nothing is as decisive as orgnizational efficiency and determination.
Could you at least put a warning tag on that photo? Ugh...my eyes.
Areas that China still need to address:
- Professional officer corp
- Shortstaff in technical ability to operate new equipment
- Centralizing command structure
- Standardizing training across the branch level
- Munition, armour, and component stockpile
In terms of instructors and training they actually have more than enough for the roles. Especially pilot training, where Chinese pilots now get more hours than pre-covid US, which obviously had more hours than current US.
It's hard to tell exactly how integrated the branches are, but at least one indicator is that they can do inter-service CEC under combat conditions. That might not sound like much, but most NATO militaries cannot do it, more or less only US.
It's platforms and manufacturing lines which makes the main bottleneck. And in terms of navy and airforce, more raw numbers in recruitment is needed as well.
What they have currently is very good quality wise. What is needed is more of the same, but in much larger numbers. More J-20s, more destroyers, more drones, more missiles, employed with similar tactics and trainings as established doctrine.
From family in the navy, I hear they're currently short on radar technicians, both operating and servicing. Supposedly, ground based radar is facing the same issues. That fancy AESA radar does nothing if nobody is reading it or maintaining it.
Perhaps there needs to be better motivation to enlist for highly skilled or specialized roles.