Reply The greatest military strategist in Chinese history?

vesicles · Dec 17, 2009

I actually did open a can of worms...

I took some exception with one poster callin me biased. I believe that I am actually been unbiased since I am the only one here asking for evidence, instead of simply accepting what others have been telling me.

I have never said Chinese medicine doesn't work. I have mentioned in my early posts that I myself use Chinese herbs to cure things like common cold and that my dad also benefited from acupunture when he had a surgery back in the 70's. So I believe it works. But I DO NOT believe the theoretical foundation of Chinese medicine, which is what it needs to develop.

One thing it lacks is statistical analysis. I've mentioned this before, but it seems that some of my fellow posters have not accepted this idea. Many still try to prove me wrong by listing how some herbs have benefited them and cured somoe illness of someone they know. That's exactly how Chinese medicine works and that's exactly what the problem is with the Chinese medicine. No one know what % of the patients was actually cured, what % had not effect and what % was actually killed. It's plain words of mouths. You say it works, but I say it doesn't. Who should we believe? A couple years back, there was a widely spread rumor about a guy cured his cancer by eating garbage. Should we start eating trash because of its "chemopreventive effects"? So what's the difference between this story and all the other ones testifying the effectiveness of certain herbs?

As for the ginseng being able to heat up one's body, hot water can do that too. I believe ALL giseng soups are brewed in hot water and have to be drunken while hot. How do we know it's not the hot water heating up your body? Maybe there is something in ginseng that chemically interacting with our cells and heat up our body. No one knows. And that's the problem. We simply don't know. the only way to find out is to do a double blinded test. A ceratin # of volunteers would be chosen and divided into two groups, with one given actual ginseng and the other one given a soup with NO ginseng but at the same temperature and with the same texture and taste as the actual ginseng soup. Both the doctor and the patients in both groups would be told that they had ginseng soup while an independent third party would analyze all the data, including testimony of how they feel, vital signs and physiological parameters, via strict statistical methods. I think some one in China has tested a few Chinese medicine using the double blinded test and found them all negative, meaning that the group given the fake medicine had similar feeling and physiological signs as those given the actual medicine. That, my friends, is a placebo effect.

Note that I am not questioning Chinese medicine because of lack of evidence. I am questioning the legitimacy of the Chinese medicine because how the theories had been dreamed up. If you have read my early posts in other thread, you know that I complain about how people overestimating our understanding of nature. So many unknowns with Chinese medicine is NOT my problem. I question how our wise ancestor came up with their theories in Chinese medicine and how they tested these theories. Now, we still don't have a shread of evidence of Jing Mai and Jing Luo. So they could not formulated their hypotheis based on physical evidence. They sat there and thought about it. It must be a imagery thing, which cannot be tested. So it's kind of like religion and philosophy, not science. Some one might say "look, it can explain things and acupuncture, which is based on Jing Main and Jing Luo, actually works. So the theory must be legit." Well, simply because it can explain thing, it doesn't mean that it is actually the truth. One good example would be the one I gave before about the moon eclipse. Ancient people hypothesized that a dog ate the moon in a moon eclipse. The way they tested this hypothesis was to beat the drum and scared the dog away. And it actually worked. So is this theory legit? It had been widely accepeted becaused it sounds legit. Our ancestor were NOT stupid. They would not accept something that sounds so out-of-the-line. It must be a very logical explanation for what they saw. Again, being able to explain things does not make a theory legit. Jing Mai and Jing Luo were simply dreamed up and were not tested at all. It can only be considered a hypothesis, which is waiting to be tested. And all the other stuff, which is based on unproven hypothesis cannot be considered legit until being proven.

rhino123 · Dec 17, 2009

vesicles said:
I actually did open a can of worms...

I took some exception with one poster callin me biased. I believe that I am actually been unbiased since I am the only one here asking for evidence, instead of simply accepting what others have been telling me.

I have never said Chinese medicine doesn't work. I have mentioned in my early posts that I myself use Chinese herbs to cure things like common cold and that my dad also benefited from acupunture when he had a surgery back in the 70's. So I believe it works. But I DO NOT believe the theoretical foundation of Chinese medicine, which is what it needs to develop.

One thing it lacks is statistical analysis. I've mentioned this before, but it seems that some of my fellow posters have not accepted this idea. Many still try to prove me wrong by listing how some herbs have benefited them and cured somoe illness of someone they know. That's exactly how Chinese medicine works and that's exactly what the problem is with the Chinese medicine. No one know what % of the patients was actually cured, what % had not effect and what % was actually killed. It's plain words of mouths. You say it works, but I say it doesn't. Who should we believe? A couple years back, there was a widely spread rumor about a guy cured his cancer by eating garbage. Should we start eating trash because of its "chemopreventive effects"? So what's the difference between this story and all the other ones testifying the effectiveness of certain herbs?

As for the ginseng being able to heat up one's body, hot water can do that too. I believe ALL giseng soups are brewed in hot water and have to be drunken while hot. How do we know it's not the hot water heating up your body? Maybe there is something in ginseng that chemically interacting with our cells and heat up our body. No one knows. And that's the problem. We simply don't know. the only way to find out is to do a double blinded test. A ceratin # of volunteers would be chosen and divided into two groups, with one given actual ginseng and the other one given a soup with NO ginseng but at the same temperature and with the same texture and taste as the actual ginseng soup. Both the doctor and the patients in both groups would be told that they had ginseng soup while an independent third party would analyze all the data, including testimony of how they feel, vital signs and physiological parameters, via strict statistical methods. I think some one in China has tested a few Chinese medicine using the double blinded test and found them all negative, meaning that the group given the fake medicine had similar feeling and physiological signs as those given the actual medicine. That, my friends, is a placebo effect.

Note that I am not questioning Chinese medicine because of lack of evidence. I am questioning the legitimacy of the Chinese medicine because how the theories had been dreamed up. If you have read my early posts in other thread, you know that I complain about how people overestimating our understanding of nature. So many unknowns with Chinese medicine is NOT my problem. I question how our wise ancestor came up with their theories in Chinese medicine and how they tested these theories. Now, we still don't have a shread of evidence of Jing Mai and Jing Luo. So they could not formulated their hypotheis based on physical evidence. They sat there and thought about it. It must be a imagery thing, which cannot be tested. So it's kind of like religion and philosophy, not science. Some one might say "look, it can explain things and acupuncture, which is based on Jing Main and Jing Luo, actually works. So the theory must be legit." Well, simply because it can explain thing, it doesn't mean that it is actually the truth. One good example would be the one I gave before about the moon eclipse. Ancient people hypothesized that a dog ate the moon in a moon eclipse. The way they tested this hypothesis was to beat the drum and scared the dog away. And it actually worked. So is this theory legit? It had been widely accepeted becaused it sounds legit. Our ancestor were NOT stupid. They would not accept something that sounds so out-of-the-line. It must be a very logical explanation for what they saw. Again, being able to explain things does not make a theory legit. Jing Mai and Jing Luo were simply dreamed up and were not tested at all. It can only be considered a hypothesis, which is waiting to be tested. And all the other stuff, which is based on unproven hypothesis cannot be considered legit until being proven.

Actually I think you mistaken the word heat up in Chinese medical term. To Chinese, a person's body is like the universe itself and there are two main components that make up the inner universe - Ying and Yang.

Chinese believe that when you fall ill... it is mainly because of an imbalance of the Ying and the Yang in the body (don't know how it actually works, but that is the theory). So when the chinese say, heat up, it doesn't mean heating up the body physically. It mean that the 'yang' is risen... or something like that. (really difficult to explain in english, we need chinese... but many of the posters here r not chinese)

Anyway, the theory on Chinese medical thingy is all about balance. Once a body is balanced, it will not fall ill.

I do believe that Chinese are not too concern about germs and bacteria because the theory behind the Chinese medical thingy is that if a body is strong, and very balanced, outside objects (germs, bacteria and virus) would not hurt someone that easily.

solarz · Dec 17, 2009

vesicles said:
One thing it lacks is statistical analysis. I've mentioned this before, but it seems that some of my fellow posters have not accepted this idea. Many still try to prove me wrong by listing how some herbs have benefited them and cured somoe illness of someone they know. That's exactly how Chinese medicine works and that's exactly what the problem is with the Chinese medicine. No one know what % of the patients was actually cured, what % had not effect and what % was actually killed. It's plain words of mouths. You say it works, but I say it doesn't. Who should we believe? A couple years back, there was a widely spread rumor about a guy cured his cancer by eating garbage. Should we start eating trash because of its "chemopreventive effects"? So what's the difference between this story and all the other ones testifying the effectiveness of certain herbs?

Try searching for "Chinese Medecine Journals" in google. You'll find a lot of published studies.

maozedong · Dec 18, 2009

rhino123;112268 If you said that, why don't you look at Zhu Yuan Zhang (first and founding emperor of Ming Dynasty). He is born a beggar... was once a monk... and I don't believe he had much of an education. If you say Qin Shi Huang is not a great military strategist just because he is born in a powerful state of Qin, than Zhu Yuan Zhang would top the place. He had a much worst background than Mao Zhedong.

Not denying that Mao Zhedong is a great military strategist but we cannot just look at one's background and dismiss him being whether a good strategist or not.

There are huge number of people in China from history down to present days who start off with very humble background... even in recent history, none of the 10 marshal of China had very good background too.

if so, you need a long article to comment Qin Shi Huang, I mainly to comment Mao. talk about Qin Shi Huang, he is a great emeror, he unifried China, but the basis of his career came from a powerful state of Qin,he is a great person, but he is not a military strategist.
about Zu Yuan Zhang, he learn the military strateg, He is a peasant uprising leader, and later became emperor, he was a military strategist, but he had no knowledge, he can not possibly grasp of military theory, he relied on the help of Liu Bowen. there is no military reason perish or knowledge, can not become a great strategist.
Three Kingdoms Period were Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang, the great military strategist, and their participation in the war, succeeded in directing a number of battles, they possess a military theory, and wrote about military theories. But their career not as Qin Shi Huang.
Mao Tse-tung has written many articles on the theory of war, even more than Sun Tzu.
of caurse Sun Tze is a great military strategist, more and more great military strategists in Chinese history.

Plus what Mao meant to say in his poem is mainly that Qin Shi Huang and Han Wu Di are good leader, but they lack very strong capability in literature, peom, music (in another word, they are brutes), Genghis Khan, on the other hand only know horse riding and archery (in another word, h
e is just a good soldier, never a great leader), Tang Tai Zhong, on lacks military power, therefore to actually see who is the greatest leader - he can only be found in present days. The main idea behind this peom is Mao comparing himself with old emperors of China... and found that he is better than any of them.

I use the poem to star,only because of its romantic,did I use the poem to judge Mao or any other hstorical person？the whole article talk about Mao in the war history and his career.You do not have too serious for this poem,because poetry is romantic, exaggerated, many people have read this poem, nobody care about that,do you think Mao really believes that Genghis Khan only knows archery? you are very funny.

:rofl:

rhino123 · Dec 18, 2009

maozedong said:
if so, you need a long article to comment Qin Shi Huang, I mainly to comment Mao. talk about Qin Shi Huang, he is a great emeror, he unifried China, but the basis of his career came from a powerful state of Qin,he is a great person, but he is not a military strategist.
about Zu Yuan Zhang, he learn the military strateg, He is a peasant uprising leader, and later became emperor, he was a military strategist, but he had no knowledge, he can not possibly grasp of military theory, he relied on the help of Liu Bowen. there is no military reason perish or knowledge, can not become a great strategist.
Three Kingdoms Period were Cao Cao and Zhuge Liang, the great military strategist, and their participation in the war, succeeded in directing a number of battles, they possess a military theory, and wrote about military theories. But their career not as Qin Shi Huang.
Mao Tse-tung has written many articles on the theory of war, even more than Sun Tzu.
of caurse Sun Tze is a great military strategist, more and more great military strategists in Chinese history.

My friend... I only use Qin Shi Huang as an example, because you said that Qin Shi Huang is only great because he already came from a strong state. I agreed to a certain extent that the background of someone is very important, but that is not the only thing that matters. I do not have as much knowledge in Chinese history as you, but I do not dismiss others just because of their background. Also if you let me choose, I think Zhu Yuan Zhang is a better military leader. He is a peasant, a beggar, a monk and uprise at a time when Yuan is still quite powerful. He learn his strategies from the many battles he fought. If you say he had no knowledge, then I think it only make him better than Mao Zedong who have formal education.

And you don't judge someone by the number of articles he or she write. You judge him by the feats he accomplished. Sun Tze practically pioneered the art of war. He didn't had anyone or anything to fall back on and still he managed to come out with something that is so useful even in today's world. Mao Zedong's theory although are good, but at this time and age, there are many tactics and strategies written in it that are actually based on historical facts and incidents. He did not invent those theories just implement them.

You say that Zhu Yuan Zhang actually accomplished alot of his feat with the help of Liu Bowen, may I ask you, which great leader didn't have any help at all... even Mao Zedong? Without his ten marshals, do you actually think he could have accomplish all his feats?

maozedong said:
I use the poem to star,only because of its romantic,did I use the poem to judge Mao or any other hstorical person？the whole article talk about Mao in the war history and his career.You do not have too serious for this poem,because poetry is romantic, exaggerated, many people have read this poem, nobody care about that,do you think Mao really believes that Genghis Khan only knows archery, you are very funny.:rofl:

When did I in my post said that Mao Zedong believes that Genghis Khan only know archery. I said that only as a translation of what he write in his peom and whether he himself believe it or not, who knows. Plus the peom is mainly Mao Zedong's way of comparing himself with ancient great emperors... and he found himself the greatest leader of them all.

One more thing to add... the peom did not say anything about being a military strategist, it mainly say about being a great leader... and there is a distinction between military strategist and being a great leader (although both can coexist).

maozedong · Dec 18, 2009

rhino123 said:
My friend... I only use Qin Shi Huang as an example, because you said that Qin Shi Huang is only great because he already came from a strong state. I agreed to a certain extent that the background of someone is very important, but that is not the only thing that matters. I do not have as much knowledge in Chinese history as you, but I do not dismiss others just because of their background. Also if you let me choose, I think Zhu Yuan Zhang is a better military leader. He is a peasant, a beggar, a monk and uprise at a time when Yuan is still quite powerful. He learn his strategies from the many battles he fought. If you say he had no knowledge, then I think it only make him better than Mao Zedong who have formal education.

And you don't judge someone by the number of articles he or she write. You judge him by the feats he accomplished. Sun Tze practically pioneered the art of war. He didn't had anyone or anything to fall back on and still he managed to come out with something that is so useful even in today's world. Mao Zedong's theory although are good, but at this time and age, there are many tactics and strategies written in it that are actually based on historical facts and incidents. He did not invent those theories just implement them.

You say that Zhu Yuan Zhang actually accomplished alot of his feat with the help of Liu Bowen, may I ask you, which great leader didn't have any help at all... even Mao Zedong? Without his ten marshals, do you actually think he could have accomplish all his feats?

When did I in my post said that Mao Zedong believes that Genghis Khan only know archery. I said that only as a translation of what he write in his peom and whether he himself believe it or not, who knows. Plus the peom is mainly Mao Zedong's way of comparing himself with ancient great emperors... and he found himself the greatest leader of them all.

One more thing to add... the peom did not say anything about being a military strategist, it mainly say about being a great leader... and there is a distinction between military strategist and being a great leader (although both can coexist).

never mine if you think any body is the greatest military strategist,you like Zhu Yuan Zhang, that's ok! the thing is your last post taken out of context from my article, I had to reply you.
yes, Mao needs other people help too,the thing is the person His own achievements in the military, what, you should list out, but you do not.
Also, you are wrong understanding about the history of Zu Yuan Zhang ,when the peasant uprising, Yuan dynasty had decay, not what you say powerful, while the peasant rebel army to overthrow the Yuan Dynasty, there are many different armed forces, the Zhu Yuan Zhang just one of them, and his troop is not the major one.
I am not asking you to choose Mao Zedong, but my view is that, in addition to their achievements depend on their own military genius, for example, a variety of important strategic decisions, and who plan, if you are familiar with history, you should know , Mao Zedong, Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao and others, they themselves develop strategic plans, but the Zu Yuan Zhang was not, the strategic plan made by Liu Bowen, Zu Yuan Zhang does not have enough knowledge, but he was trusted Liu Bowen.this is Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang, Mao Zedong and others, defferent with Zu Yuan Zhang.
Please do not indulge in those poems on, and this is not our subject of discussion.

rhino123 · Dec 18, 2009

maozedong said:
never mine if you think any body is the greatest military strategist,you like Zhu Yuan Zhang, that's ok! the thing is your last post taken out of context from my article, I had to reply you.

I have never say I like Zhu Yuan Zhang. Please don't put words in my mouth. I only quote him in debate over you stating that Qin Shi Huang is only great because he came from a strong state. I am merely stating that for someone to be good, background might not mean too much. (this is a debate to your first post)

maozedong said:
yes, Mao needs other people help too,the thing is the person His own achievements in the military, what, you should list out, but you do not.

All the feat that you have stated... do you actually really believe that all of them came out from the brain of Mao only? He is the one that actually have all these brilliant ideas? Then the man doesn't need his generals and advisor, he is practically god.

maozedong said:
Also, you are wrong understanding about the history of Zu Yuan Zhang ,when the peasant uprising, Yuan dynasty had decay, not what you say powerful, while the peasant rebel army to overthrow the Yuan Dynasty, there are many different armed forces, the Zhu Yuan Zhang just one of them, and his troop is not the major one.

Actually you are also wrong about Zhu's history, I do not mean to state it out, but you keep pushing it in. Okay, lets start, Liu Bowen actual name is Liu Ji. Zhu Yuanzhang never actually rely on him on military affair, rather, Zhu YuanZhang rely on his other generals such as Xu Da and Chang Yuchun. Liu mainly advice on intellecture things.

But you are correct in one thing, when Zhu YuanZhang rebel, there are many other armed force too... but Zhu actually unified them.

maozedong said:
I am not asking you to choose Mao Zedong, but my view is that, in addition to their achievements depend on their own military genius, for example, a variety of important strategic decisions, and who plan, if you are familiar with history, you should know , Mao Zedong, Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao and others, they themselves develop strategic plans

That I agreed with u. I am not as familiar with chinese history as you. however you say that Mao Zedong develope the strategic plans themselves... may I ask you to show some proof? Documents?

maozedong said:
but the Zu Yuan Zhang was not, the strategic plan made by Liu Bowen, Zu Yuan Zhang does not have enough knowledge, but he was trusted Liu Bowen.

Wrong history. And do you actually think Mao Zedong had enough knowledge on everything? What make you say that?

maozedong said:
this is Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang, Mao Zedong and others, defferent with Zu Yuan Zhang.

Of course Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang, Mao Zedong and others are different with Zhu Yuan Zhang, they are from different eras and they met different hardship.

maozedong said:
Please do not indulge in those poems on, and this is not our subject of discussion.

You are the one who bring up this peom. I am not indulging on this peom, just stating the mere fact of what Mao Zedong is trying to say.

Also if you could read in between the line, you would know the ambition of Mao Zedong.

Finally this debate is not getting anywhere. It is rather silly to judge who is the greatest military strategists in China, because everyone of them are from different era and met different circumstances. Unless you pit them all against each other now, we will never find out.

maozedong · Dec 18, 2009

rhino123 said:
I have never say I like Zhu Yuan Zhang. Please don't put words in my mouth. I only quote him in debate over you stating that Qin Shi Huang is only great because he came from a strong state. I am merely stating that for someone to be good, background might not mean too much. (this is a debate to your first post)

All the feat that you have stated... do you actually really believe that all of them came out from the brain of Mao only? He is the one that actually have all these brilliant ideas? Then the man doesn't need his generals and advisor, he is practically god.

Actually you are also wrong about Zhu's history, I do not mean to state it out, but you keep pushing it in. Okay, lets start, Liu Bowen actual name is Liu Ji. Zhu Yuanzhang never actually rely on him on military affair, rather, Zhu YuanZhang rely on his other generals such as Xu Da and Chang Yuchun. Liu mainly advice on intellecture things.

But you are correct in one thing, when Zhu YuanZhang rebel, there are many other armed force too... but Zhu actually unified them.

That I agreed with u. I am not as familiar with chinese history as you. however you say that Mao Zedong develope the strategic plans themselves... may I ask you to show some proof? Documents?

Wrong history. And do you actually think Mao Zedong had enough knowledge on everything? What make you say that?

Of course Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang, Mao Zedong and others are different with Zhu Yuan Zhang, they are from different eras and they met different hardship.

You are the one who bring up this peom. I am not indulging on this peom, just stating the mere fact of what Mao Zedong is trying to say.

Also if you could read in between the line, you would know the ambition of Mao Zedong.

Finally this debate is not getting anywhere. It is rather silly to judge who is the greatest military strategists in China, because everyone of them are from different era and met different circumstances. Unless you pit them all against each other now, we will never find out.

you are last section article is right, I put forward my own candidate, others can also have their own choices, since you think it is "silly", you should not plow into the discussion, in particular, you ignore other people's whole article, inexplicably put someone article, of which one to pick out, out of context, causing controversy.
Now that you took part in the discussion to select your favorite characters, you should study it carefully around the subject of our discussion, this individual's contribution to military theory, and serious to write about.
I do not ask other people agree with me, but I already have written the detail of Mao in the war, stories of his military theory, these articles are written in his book, you can see, you may not know, if you look at Guo documentary, you can see a Mao Tse-tung in every major battle, he's instructions, his manuscripts.
In the bookstore, we can also find some books about many of the ancient Art of War, which referred to Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao had written Art of War.
I used a poem as a sequence of articles is not the subject of the article, so I advise you do not have to struggle.
if I use"不到长城非好汉"(the person who never been to the great wall is not a man)for article decoration,are you arguing about it again?
you don't need to show me the link, I read so many these, include books,just leave for you.

rhino123 · Dec 18, 2009

maozedong said:
you are last section article is right, I put forward my own candidate, others can also have their own choices, since you think it is "silly", you should not plow into the discussion, in particular, you ignore other people's whole article, inexplicably put someone article, of which one to pick out, out of context, causing controversy.
Now that you took part in the discussion to select your favorite characters, you should study it carefully around the subject of our discussion, this individual's contribution to military theory, and serious to write about.
I do not ask other people agree with me, but I already have written the detail of Mao in the war, stories of his military theory, these articles are written in his book, you can see, you may not know, if you look at Guo documentary, you can see a Mao Tse-tung in every major battle, he's instructions, his manuscripts.
In the bookstore, we can also find some books about many of the ancient Art of War, which referred to Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao had written Art of War.
I used a poem as a sequence of articles is not the subject of the article, so I advise you do not have to struggle.
if I use"不到长城非好汉"(the person who never been to the great wall is not a man)for article decoration,are you arguing about it again?
you don't need to show me the link, I read so many these, include books,just leave for you.

You are right about one thing, since you and I don't agree on something, we will just leave it as that, I will not force my believes into u.

The only thing that I would like to add, and that it seemed to escape you (for whatever reason), is that I have not put in any candidates for the best strategists in the China. I think that it is not right to just start comparing 'dead' strategists. It doesn't make any sense, since all of them are long gone now and there is no way of us knowing what each and everyone of them will do when put in each other's shoes.

You keep singing praises of Mao Zedong and his feat, I disagree, just leave it there.

Plus, why do you keep coming up with the peom. You are the one that start your debate with the peom first and I just stated that we must look between the lines of the peom and that peom has nothing to do with who is the greatest strategist.

Finally, you kept boasting that you read many books. Well, you win in this, I do not read as many books as you. But whenever I read something, I read in between the lines, I try to comprehen what is written in those books.

As to you saying that Mao ochestra all these military feats... I have only one thing to add... he is a great leader and a great militarists, but his theory and stuffs like that are not born out of thin air or his own military genius. His strategies are basing on strategies used in the past by not only in China but even in western countries.

And finally... I am not denying the greatest of Mao Zedong, just pointing out that he is just one strategists in the mist of others. And all of them stand at the same level... and all of them are legendary.

Plus, you have your own opinion, I have mine. Why shouldn't I be allow in this debate?

maozedong · Dec 19, 2009

rhino123 said:
You are right about one thing, since you and I don't agree on something, we will just leave it as that, I will not force my believes into u.

The only thing that I would like to add, and that it seemed to escape you (for whatever reason), is that I have not put in any candidates for the best strategists in the China. I think that it is not right to just start comparing 'dead' strategists. It doesn't make any sense, since all of them are long gone now and there is no way of us knowing what each and everyone of them will do when put in each other's shoes.

You keep singing praises of Mao Zedong and his feat, I disagree, just leave it there.

Plus, why do you keep coming up with the peom. You are the one that start your debate with the peom first and I just stated that we must look between the lines of the peom and that peom has nothing to do with who is the greatest strategist.

Finally, you kept boasting that you read many books. Well, you win in this, I do not read as many books as you. But whenever I read something, I read in between the lines, I try to comprehen what is written in those books.

As to you saying that Mao ochestra all these military feats... I have only one thing to add... he is a great leader and a great militarists, but his theory and stuffs like that are not born out of thin air or his own military genius. His strategies are basing on strategies used in the past by not only in China but even in western countries.

And finally... I am not denying the greatest of Mao Zedong, just pointing out that he is just one strategists in the mist of others. And all of them stand at the same level... and all of them are legendary.

Plus, you have your own opinion, I have mine. Why shouldn't I be allow in this debate?

no body want you accept my oppinion, the thing is you coming to aguring with me, so what are you trying to boast too?
read some books not that hard, I only post one for my selection, wnat's the matter you non stop talking so much like long tongue....
I like apple,you like banana, you just make another post to talk about haw good the banana is, this time in the post you want to make flaming or not?
" you have your own opinion, I have mine. Why shouldn't I be allow in this debate?" this question exactly I want to ask you.
I don't mine how to you judge Mao, you said its " silly" to talk this, why are you still come to talk?

Reply The greatest military strategist in Chinese history?

vesicles

Colonel

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

solarz

Brigadier

maozedong

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

maozedong

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

maozedong

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

maozedong

Banned Idiot