A chink friend of mine claims that for the majority of human history, it was actually China (in one state or another), that was the most advanced civilization. He cites the regional dominance, cultural influence and expansive bureaucracy as proof of "greatness", not to mention the huge population and thus human capital available and their inventions. How true is his claim?The problem, as you can see, is that he's a chink and is naturally very proud of his country's "5000 year old" history, so I take what he says with a grain of salt. He further claims that only Rome at its height could equal China, and that it was only until the discovery of Americas that westerners started catching up and surpassing China...what do you guys think? Obviously a lot here must be bullshit, but are there any grains of truth?
That's a distorted view of what chinks tell me. They do believe that but they see European history like they see their own history, a struggle to reunify. They see Westerners as inferior because they never reunified post-Rome.
all this bullshit of 5000 years to turn your civilization into a strip mall with a completely collapsing population
>>16529433Name one country of even the semi-developed world that isn’t a strip mall. NONE of the major civilizations, high cultures or nation-states have the same confidence or sense of cultural richness they did centuries or decades ago. That’s why people s01jak over Japan, because they’re a developed country with the capability of at least artificially preserving their attractive cultural authenticity.
>>16529416>what do you guys think?I think your nervousness is getting the better of you
>>16529416>He further claims that only Rome at its height could equal China, and that it was only until the discovery of Americas that westerners started catching up and surpassing China...You know? I'm inclined to agree. But 19th and 20th centuries were disastrous for China and it's uncertain if this one will be any better.
>>16529416>it was only until the discovery of Americas that westerners started catching up and surpassing ChinaThis is objectively true though. Have you seen Chinese fortified cities? The strength of the defenses were not surpassed until fortified concrete was invented in the Second World War. They were essentially a sandwich of a traditional rock/cement outside and a earthen filling to widen the wall significantly such that cavalry maneuvering was possible. It fully encompassed a massive city with a moat surrounding the entire city. The city was never taken by military force.
>>16529481>But 19th and 20th centuries were disastrous for China and it's uncertain if this one will be any betterI would argue that China currently in the last 40 years or so has already hit a higher peak than the Qing of the 19th and 20th centuries. The CCP’s already classified as a “long dynasty” instead of one of the many shorter-lived ones. What I agree with you on is that it’s uncertain whether or not they’ll be able to maintain that peak until the end of this century, doubtful
>>16529555That things a joke compared to a trace italienne.
>>16529570Delusional
>>16529416China isn't what it once was. They do play the game of : "Anything you can do...." quite well. They've never actually invented anything recently. But there was a time when all the good stuff came from China.Times change.
>>16530550Rote memorisation. You need to learn. Not think....That's kind of everywhere...
>>16530555Wonder why....
>merchant-scholar population becomes too greedy and decadent. famines everywhere>it only takes a few hundred thousand foreign horse archers to demolish half of china>peasant population swells up, swallows foreign conqueror population up. merchant-scholar population becomes too greedy and decadent.>rinse and repeat x10
>>16529555>a traditional rock/cement outside and a earthen filling to widen the wallThat not special at all and is identical to the principle of materials and lamination of crossfire sections of the Theodosian walls and the length and the height in itself (14km and 12m tall) is very similiar to Korean Mountain fortresses and Japanese Castles of the 16th-17th century. The only key difference is that they used brick instead of giant base keystones and and axe shaped rocks for the first layer of the wall. The thickness is still impressive but earthbacked forts in general are impervious to artillery strikes. The Diaoyu to me seems more unique due to the logistics of that enviroment.
>>16529460It's super insecure. I find the whole idea of comparison with other blocs, cultures, people silly. It's as silly as living a personal life via comparison, needing everyone in the world to want the same things and to be better than all of them by achieving (or at least striving toward) said things more.The sanest view of China is that they are them. They are doing things that make sense in terms of who holds the power there, in line with their feeling. >>16530550OK. They still kick the West's ass at infrastructure.
"Bolshie" Roger Kwong was a busybody who got himself involved in other people's business...
>>16530800Holy... juchepilled??!
Han Chinese history is one of losing every single war
>>16530933Why do the han still exist >by breeding like rabbits How did they get the breathing space to do that
>>16529416>How true is his claim?It's complete cope and a lie. They were always poorer _per capita_ and less developed than the West even if they were a larger population (a fact that is completely speculative, they had an African style population boom after introduction of Western agriculture technology only so this is unlikely). The West has had a lot of labour saving industry through vertical wind- and water mills since very early and all respectable historians will estimate a much higher productivity per capita for this reason. The amount of writing done in Europe (less labour needed in more developed places allows more leisure time+support for scholars to write) is also >100x more than anywhere else on Earth since Ancient times. Picrel. There is no reason "history" outside of the West. Even most battles in picrel are really Europeans fighting there. East Asians barely recorded such history changing events, nevermind the comparison for Europe where we know what some irrelevant blacksmith had for lunch 600 years ago because his apprentice was complaining about the new cheese tariff imposed in the County or whatever.Most of the European inventions they claim to have "invented first" are actually just medieval recreations of Ancient Grecian milestones (lodestones etc.), and they never had these thing pre-European contact. They also didn't have most of these things post-European contact and kept using shitty Bronze age technologies until early modern times after buying it from Europe/Japan (who bought it from Europe earlier).
>>16530977>>16530933Survival through tight pussy.Han history literally starts by giving away Han princess pussy as tribute to Steppe warrior Chads. That's literally one of the first things they wrote down and it's been baked into their genetic memory as their number one survival strategy ever since: to White Steppe warrior tribes, to Mongols, to Manchus, to Japanese soldiers: they survive by flooding platters of their pussies to conquering men.Picrel: the genetic instinct of Chairman Mao to offer pussy to American Chads as a way for Han China to survive another power.Pussy is a powerful weapon, beware.
>>16531033We get it, you have an NTR raceplay fetish.
>>16531053Wrong, I would never let the commie dwarfs steal my seed.
>>16529460>riggid honesty>From chinksLol, lmao even.
>>16529416>"5000 year old" historyRead this (written by Chinese): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-has-long-history-why-few-ancient-buildings-preserved-ying-zhou#:~:text=Many%20buildings%20in%20the%20early,the%20Xianyang%20Palace%20in%20Xian.They don't have a single structure surviving from pre-modern times: the "Great wall" is built using modern Western techniques (the original wall was rammed Earth and only some ditched remain, not Western style vertical wall), the Imperial city is modern poured concrete etc.The only truly Ancient thing they have is some barrows, for which the continuity with modern Chinese civilization is dubious as they forgot about it literally until 1970. In general both the history and the idea of a Han ethnicty is an entirely artificial one.
>>16531074Says the kike.>but im whiteTheres no difference
Both India and China were prosperous simply because they each amounted to 20% of mankind throughout history. So of course there's a lot of production simply due to the bulk of labour. But then you look at the inventions made in China and India and it's honestly pathetic when put together they're almost half of mankind throughout time.
>>16531033>loud obnoxious interracial fetish rant I really shouldn’t have asked desu
>>16529416But that is correct.We did fail to reunify after Rome. It lead to centuries of decline. We lost and had to re-discover nearly everything.China has existed this entire time.Maybe you're just a stupid, racist piece of shit? Your chinese friend is right. Stop arguing with your friend who is clearly smarter than you are.
>>16531074>we fucking hate you because you want to rule China the same way the Brits ruled India, capitalist>N-NUH UH!!!!!! *sniff* NUH UH Get a hold of yourself
>>16530550>They've never actually invented anything recently. Yes, but they keep trying to claim they do. In 2016 they claimed to be world leaders in>AI: turned out to be complete bullshit, with LLMs and Diffussion AI all coming from the West, this is even more apparent today, but anyone outside the media grift in 2016 could've told you that all the pioneers and world leaders in the field are Western (American, French, British)>Quantum physics/Quantum computing: turns out the entanglement experiments (20th century Western milestones) was all from one single Prof. who studied in Heidelberg and mostly still got his grant money from the EU/US. In terms of QC it's all dominated by Western companies, China isn't even in the game.>Superconductors (lol)>Chipmaking: turns out even Taiwan was on low tech end of the chain and it's all due to ASML/Zeiss/USA on the high tech end, even Taiwan is just using things they learned from Texas instruments in the 70s).>Industrialization of space: SpaceX has no serious competition.The actual major achievements in the last decade were all European/Western: discovery of the Higgs Boson, Gravitational waves, exoplanets, the first fully synthetic life (Venter's team who also did the 1st full genetic sequencing).Europeans and its colonies remain on top where they have been since the early iron age.>But there was a time when all the good stuff came from China.This is simply a lie, like they lied about all of the above. The claim ALWAYS boils down to some vague Chinese precursor technology which the West also had before them (often Ancient Greeks or even Bronze age civs already had them). But it's all Western inventions: by all objective measures only the West developed these things because the actual useful prestigious invention is what allowed Westerners to produce more literature than anyone else (picrel, China in 17th century would still be producing less than half what Europe did in the 7th cen), sail/conquer the world etc.
>>16531132>>16529555>>16530837They were never "prospering" and they still aren't. If you draw a line around all of Africa it suddenly seems impressive: 1 billion people, 4th biggest GDP on Earth etc.When you think about it in any objective way it falls apart: China still has GDP per capita less than Poland.
>>16531196Ok, do you want it in a more academic context instead of a funny one, everything I said is 100% true:>According to Rogers & Kaestle (2022), roughly 47% of Xiongnu paternal haplogroups were of West Eurasian origin, while the rest were of East Asian origin. They observed that this contrasts strongly with the preceding Slab Grave period, which was dominated by East Asian patrilineages. They suggest that this may reflect an aggressive expansion of people with West Eurasian paternal haplogroups, or perhaps the practice of marriage alliances or cultural networks favoring people with Western patrilines.[250]>Heqin, also known as marriage alliance, refers to the historical practice of Chinese monarchs marrying princesses—usually members of minor branches of the ruling family—to rulers of neighboring states.[1] It was often adopted as an appeasement strategy with an enemy state that was too powerful to defeat on the battlefield.>Lou Jing (Chinese: 娄敬, later granted the imperial surname Liu 劉), the architect of the policy, proposed granting the eldest daughter of Emperor Gaozu of Han to Modu Chanyu of the Xiongnu. His proposal was adopted and implemented with a treaty in 198 BC, following the Battle of Baideng two years prior.[2][3] Wang Zhaojun, of the Han dynasty, and Princess Wencheng, of the Tang dynasty, are among the most famous heqin princesses.>The 20th-century scholar Wang Tonglin praised heqin for facilitating the "melting of races" in China.[4]The more you know.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heqin
>>16531223NTA. Your post doesn't even make any sense. You would have better luck in life if you put more effort into trying to articulate yourself instead of forcing everything into a meme context.
>>16529416They were major traders and a big economic power, but India had more cultural and military influence on the world what with SEA being heavily Hinduized
>>16529416It's funny seeing people denying Chinese history while exactly looking at it.Lol.
>>16531440>India had more cultural and military influence on the world what with SEA being heavily HinduizedIndia did not even exist before the Brits turned it into a state. Even the word India is an exonym.China did actually exist as a state since Ancient Han dynasty times.
>>16531452No one denies it exists, it is just unimpressive. Ancient Greco-Romans dominated everything important in early human civilization, but then what other period is there? In the medieval period were also far more developed than anywhere else. No one denies people lived outside of Europe and some of them wrote histories down, but they were mostly uninteresting farmers who did not contribute to the story of modern civilization except perhaps as being a source of spices.
>>16531017damn whitoids are so warlike
>>16529460Incredible cope over communist china mogging the west with the "falsehoods" of marxism-leninism
>>16531440Chinks are also all over SEA as merchants and it was Muslim merchants who converted Indonesia so India wasn't all that relevant.
Behold the remains of the greatest palace in history, 6'7 times the forbidden city of Beijing.
>>16531274Sub-Saharan africa has a GDP less than mexico why are you lying lmfao
>>16531549>but they were mostly uninteresting farmers who did not contribute to the story of modern civilizationJust like most Europeans.
>>16531274>1 billion people, 4th biggest GDP on Earth etc.Meanwhile in this reality with 1.3 billion niggers
>>16529416Depends on what you consider most important. The states occupying the area of modern China have generally been distinguished for arts, prosperity, and political organization. But in other points like mathematics and philosophy, China has generally been weaker than other Asian civilizations.It is extraordinarily difficult to support the case that China was more accomplished than ancient Greece, and the Europeans had surpassed them by the time of the Renaissance. In my opinion it is healthy to think of the medieval period as the age of general Asian supremacy.>The peoples of the Orient were once much superior to our western peoples, in all the manual and spiritual arts. But how we have made up for lost time, says M. de Voltaire! The countries where Bramante and Michelangelo built Saint Peter’s of Rome, where Raphael painted, or Newton calculated infinity, or Leibnitz shared this glory, or Huyggens applied the cycloid to the pendulum clock, where Jean de Bruges discovered oil painting, where Cinna and Athalie have been written; these countries, I say, became the first countries of the world. The eastern peoples are now in fine art only barbarians or children, despite their antiquity and all that nature did for them.
>>16531549>>16531017bait
>>16531274What would I know m8. I only travelled to almost every province and lived there for a year.
>>16531549this guy gets it and the people who have responded to him are coping bigly
>>16532216how were early medieval people more advanced than the chinese
>>16532228they knew how to make stone columns
>>16532254
>>16530837> OK. They still kick the West's ass at infrastructure.But why? They're turning their home into concrete hell....
>>16532293Something to do with GDP, wasn't it? Are they trolling?
>>16532285if only your palaces had some instead of wood
>>16532309>the country that builds more palaces out of non-wood material is more advanced
>>16531911>>16531925I said all of Africa, not Sub-Saharan African. Learn to read you filth.
>>16531924You live in European civilization, everything you are reading with, interacting with etc. is European. Even modern China is also a European state inspired by European laws, philosophers, European style universities, academic disciplines, engineering etc. with it's politicians wearing suits and ties in European fashion.When you got your Bachelors degree you were experiencing European tradition and medieval guild systems. When you graduated highschool it was a Ancient European ceremony. When you learned English you were learning a European language.Modern civilization is Western, an there is nothing from pre-modern era non-Westerners that universally contributed to it.
>>16532141Ok and? You and every other influencer paid for by the CCP or dumb enough to shill for free didn't bother to check up the objective fact that China has a GDP per capita less than Poland?Why do you think your low IQ anecdotes are interesting to us?
>>16532228They literally built the tallest buildings on Earth? They also were producing more books than China would until modern times.By what measure _weren't_ they more advanced?
>>16532493early medieval europeans were not doing thatyour pic is built in the late middle ages
You must kneel
>>16532493Machinery takes a lot of the allure away from this stuff.Before it was a case of : Look at what good works man has done!Now it's :Look at what was ouput by CAD, and implemented by machinery.It just makes the works of the dark ages (and later in the renaissance) all that more impressive.
>>16529481China was only impressive during the Song Dynasty after the Han. Other than that it was a joke
>>16529555>The city was never taken by military forceChang'an was taken multiple times. And if you think that wall hasn't been reconstructed I have things to sell you
>>16530837What ethnicity are you?
>>16532678The glory's gone, human. But now at least you can do what you want at the push of a button.
>>16532695Always thought people were crazy when they said : "The work alone is reward enough...."When you sit and stew and think it all through - you realised in the end that it might all be true.
>>16531254Slight correction, TSMC's market dominance is mostly due to Philips, which used to be a major shareholder.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UG87ZLB4AY
>>16531254>The claim ALWAYS boils down to some vague Chinese precursor technology which the West also had before themWhat about gunpowder>China in 17th century would still be producing less than half what Europe did in the 7th cenSource?
>>16531254according to your chart europe during the 7th century produced around 10,00 manuscriptsbetween 1403 and 1408 the ming court alone produced 11,000 volumes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongle_Encyclopediaalso between 1772 and 1782 the qing court produced 36,000 volumes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siku_Quanshuso where do you get the idea that europeans were producing more books during the dark ages than the chinese during the early modern period
>>16532318it is for me
>>16532584Notre dam was built in 1163, finished in 1260, do you think the knowledge to build it popped out of the heavens one day? No they developed these building techniques from early medieval period abbeys/cathedrals and were already using stone-steel composite structures by then together with using mathematised Statics on combination with line tension models to design these buildings.This is not something that existed outside of Europe, that why large monuments like pyramids, ziggurats or rammed earth structures with no interiors were mostly built instead.
>>16532784you're moving the goalposts, if you are honest you will withdraw your former argument>early medieval period abbeys/cathedrals and were already using stone-steel composite structures by then together with using mathematised Statics on combination with line tension models to design these buildings.source?>This is not something that existed outside of Europe, that why large monuments like pyramids, ziggurats or rammed earth structures with no interiors were mostly built instead.Mischaracterization since the arches and vaulting and domes used in near eastern architecture like picrel have been proposed as influences on the Gothic style from the 17th centuryAlso I want to hear your case for the amount of books since there is no way to quantify the amount of books printed in dynastic China
>>16532448>You live in European civilization, everything you are reading with, interacting with etc. is European.Correct, because I live in Europe.>Even modern China is also a European stateWrong.>inspired by European laws, philosophers, European style universities, academic disciplines, engineering etc. with it's politicians wearing suits and ties in European fashion.Correct. But it also has elements that are thoroughly Chinese and can be found in historical records before they encountered Europeans.>When you got your Bachelors degree you were experiencing European tradition and medieval guild systems. When you graduated highschool it was a Ancient European ceremony. When you learned English you were learning a European language.Correct.>Modern civilization is Western*Western civilization is one of the civilizations existing in modern times.>an there is nothing from pre-modern era non-Westerners that universally contributed to it."Universally" is an ambiguous world in this instance. Modern Chess is very European, but it was originally a Persian game. Coffee was first drank in East Africa and then arrived in Europe through Arabs. We got many, many plants from New World including potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco.>plants aren't culture!But agriculture is. Those plants didn't just grow there on their own, native Americans grew them. And would Europeans get the idea to smoke tobacco leaves on their own if Amerindians didn't first?
>>16532293Economic prosperity. Some of it could be prettier.
china is stronger than your shithole
>>16533072Isn't that a Leopard 2 in the background tho?
>>16533226looks like a t80
>>16529416>Chicken Nanban>>>/ck/
>>16532767all fakes created by the ccp
>>16532960I want to warn you. You are talking to >>16532448who is unlikely to be changed as he is not open to actual discussion. Europe contributed much to the world that cannot be denied nor will I make the case for those who hate europe as I do not care for their like. But it is also true that others have contributed to the development of the modern world. I would like to add some of my own observations. The script he is writing in and that we are reading did not develop from a european civilization it developed from a semetic one (phoenician). The binary that allowed computers to interface with us is something gottlieb ripped from the I ching. The numbers used to identify his post are Indian numerals. The time that is stamped is from the babylonian tradition. It is true that modern laws were inspired by roman traditions but in the case of china the tang legal code is still relevant and so are confucian and legalist frameworks. The hundred schools of thought predate socrates and are influential even in the west (Leibniz, Voltaire, Bohr, and Franklin). The british who had the largest empire the world had yet seen adopted meritocratic examinations from the chinese intially for their east india company but then for most working positions(Post tang the examinations were more than just poetry). Getting a degree from an accredited school is not something unique to the west (Jinshi analogous to a degree in the west). The europeans adopted many technologies from the rest of the world. E.g for china; Gunpowder(not smokeless), compass(not just lodestones but magnetized needles and dry compasses),paper (Papyrus is not the same thing), and paper printing (Not claiming they invented printing press) are the famous contributions. Lesser known ones are water tight bulkheads for ships which are used in all modern ships and the pound lock. European innovations have also made their way back. Few things develop in a vacuum.
>>16534318>open to actual discussionI am very open to discussion, I just detest blatant lies, especially like the ones propogated in your post. I think you are the one closed to discussion. You are unwilling to listen to objective facts and simply propogate anti-European lies and myths.>>16534318>Phoenician scripThe alphabet you posted (btw actually found in Sardinia in that exact form, assumed to be Carthaginian (of which no writing survive), not proper Phoenician as they wrote mostly in Cuneiform) is supposedly dated 1st millenium BC...this is FAR younger than both Proto-Latin and the Greek Alphabet. It is FAR, FAR younger than the 4,000 BC European Vinca script (picrel) which also contains many of the symbols in your pic which is supposed to have evolved in a culture that didn't exist.Why, exactly, should we believe this logical inconsistency?>>16534318>The binary that allowed computers to interface with us is something gottlieb ripped from the I ching.No he did not. You are lying or very stupid. I Ching did not have a binary system, he did not even have a Hexadecimal system. What he had was a hexagram in base 62 (not even base 2). This is not something new to Europeans who also had modal calendars and clocks. Leibniz drew inspiration from the universality of numerical systems, he himself invented the binary system this is not disputed.Now the question is why do you keep propogating blatant lies like this? Do you think you will exhaust academics and trick enough stupid people until you win? You won't. Truth always prevails.
>>16534318>timeBase 60 time is true, calling it Babylonian is wrong, it predates Babylon. The first Sexagesimal is from Sumeria.So you are propogating cheap lies anyway. Why do you post with such confidence shit that is a complete lie? Why not just study actual history?>Gunpowder(not smokeless), Dubious. China had a deflegatory formulation, not an explosive formulation like Europeans developed. >compass(not just lodestones but magnetized needles and dry compasses),Blatant lie, Chinese did not use dry compasses until early modern times. Europeans invented it and as you know Ancient Greeks already had lodestones like China only later did. The turtle needle in China was not combined with wind directions nor a gyroscope and did not influence any later navigational technologies. Yet China properly adopted the European COMPASS (a magnetized needle combined with wind directions) in early modern times showimg that their wet water navigational techniwlque was inferior. Modern GPS still uses European longitude and latitude. Only European carthography and navigational methods survived.Europeans evolved the compass out of solar methods to find wind directions, it took no inspiration from the East, only Greeks.
>>16534318>paper (Papyrus is not the same thing), What is your argument for saying Papyrus is not paper? Different plant fibres? Then European paper is not Chinese paper as it was made from linen not hemp and inspired by previous mill methods to make parchment.It is true that China had its own paper developed seperately from papyrus and this is far older than European paper. But Europeans also had its own paper and developed a manufacturing process based on water mills which is the one that led to the development of the modern papermills. So my statment absolutely stands.>and paper printing (Not claiming they invented printing press) are the famous contributions. Then why put this in there? Because you want to propogate the lie that the baked clay stamps China had (bronze age tech Egypt/Sumer already had and later available everywhere) was a "printing _press_" despite the fact that it has nothing in common with Gutenberg's press. >Lesser known ones are water tight bulkheads for ships This one is true, but very uninteresting and also not really needed in the age of ballast tanks. It was only adopted in the West in late modern times and had little effect on the history of European maritime engineering.>Few things develop in a vacuum.But Europe precisely did: because Muslims intentionally cut us off from international trade for 4 centuries.
>>16535528(Picrel for this post)
>>16535528>SardiniaThe Phoenician introduced the asian concept of a city to Sardinia.>The Phoenicians introduced to Sardinia a form of urban aggregation hitherto unknown to the natives: the city. The Nuragic clans lived in cantons, i.e. vast well-defined territories controlled by Nuragic towers located in strategic points.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician%E2%80%93Punic_Sardinia
>>16535580>GreeksGreek was settled by Phoenicians.
>>16535580>China had a deflegatory formulation, not an explosive formulation like Europeans developed.The Europeans developed that from Chinese powder>>16535605>Then European paper is not Chinese paper as it was made from linen not hemp and inspired by previous mill methods to make parchment.That was developed out of Chinese paperAlso PLEASE tell me where you get the idea that China produced less books in the 17th century than Europe in the 7th
>>16535613>The Phoenician introduced the asian concept of a city to Sardinia.This is an assumption. I have not seen proof of it.It is also not the Phoenicians, but the Carthaginians, to get your timelines straight.
>>16535614I will answer all your questions, but will also note your intellectual dishonesty where you refused to answer mine and ignored all the facts that you cannot argue against.>Greek was settled by Phoenicians.This old racist narrative was proven false:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25912-9>>16535636>The Europeans developed that from Chinese powder>That was developed out of Chinese paperThey did not. See? Easy to make bullshit statements.Europeans have detailed record of its development from water milling techniques used to produce also things like parchment. China does not have a such a record.The word paper comes from the word papyrus so therefore the influence is clear, while you are just pushing nationalist narratives.>Also PLEASE tell me where you get the idea that China produced less books in the 17th century than Europe in the 7thSee the data sources. It is true, an earlier post said 30k volumes, which not only is a smaller number than 50k manuscripts, but is also much smaller than the European definition of a volume which is considered a whole book, not article length.Even with semantic cheating you lose.As for where I first learned of this fact it is was actually in a paper written by Chinese authors so it is not really disputed, I will look for it in my old harddrive, I don't really keep history papers with my professional academic research tools.
>>16535651>They did not. See? Easy to make bullshit statements.Look up any source on the development of those things. You are going against the mainstream narrative, you need to make a case for why that is wrong or you're going to come across as unbelievable >Europeans have detailed record of its development from water milling techniques used to produce also things like parchment. China does not have a such a record.Firstly, I contest the idea that China has no such record. Secondly, even if that were true, it would be irrelevant as we know that paper was made there first and then gradually made its way to the west >It is true, an earlier post said 30k volumes, which not only is a smaller number than 50k manuscriptsThat post said 30k volumes in 10 years by just the imperial court, contrasted to 10k in a 100 years by the entirety of Europe which your chart says>but is also much smaller than the European definition of a volume which is considered a whole book, not article length.Source?>As for where I first learned of this fact it is was actually in a paper written by Chinese authors so it is not really disputedFeel free to send it to me
