How much of ancient Chinese history is just straight up fictional?
>>18043906A lot. They didn't invent gunpowder for example. That's just reinterpretation of texts talking about incendiary weapons.
>>18043906Most of it before the Tang
All of ancient history is fake, especially the Chinese parts
Stories like the Jade Emperor myths.
>>18044073Then who invented gunpowder?
>>18046248Someone in central-west Europe. Hence European mastery of firearm technology.
>>18047329Wait really? I have anti-white fatigue and not even I knew it was a lie that China invented gunpowder. I’m usually good at calling out false attribution of inventions and discoveries but this has went completely under my radar.Do you have any helpful sources relating to this?
>>18047435Fake news. China invented gunpowder but used it in cannons and various projectile weapons. Europeans were the first to make an actual legit gun with gunpowder.
>>18047435https://history.stackexchange.com/a/20654 gives a super good overview>>18047448>China invented gunpowder but used it in cannons and various projectile weapons. Europeans were the first to make an actual legit gun with gunpowder.The earliest unambiguous projectile gunpowder weapon, not an incendiary device, is the Pot de Fer, from Europe. How exactly is that the case if it was invented in China?
>>18043906>30.000 civilians eaten>Decisive Tang strategic victoryHaving met modern chinese, I'm afraid it's all true
>>18047448>but used it in cannonslmao at wumaoGuns were first cast in Europe ZhangThey had barrel workers and church bell smiths trying different methods because obviously lots of things went wrongHence the saying "barrel of the gun"Take this knowledge and go do some research If you look at old gun designs, they very much resembled barrels
>>18048277Gunpowder already existed in China prior. You're once again confusing guns and gunpowder
>>18048304You illiterate niggers seriously can't tell the difference between gunpowder and firearms. Gunpowder is an explosive powder, not a gun. There is no evidence for Europe inventing gunpowder.
>>18049078China invented the firelance which was a polearm with a close range explosive attached. A crude ancestor to firearms but quite a stretch to say it was a gun.
>>18049025Can you show me a Chinese source - not a he says she says chain, but a source itself - that refers to gunpowder prior to documented European use of it?
>>18049142Wujing Zongyaohttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/tg/tmiltech.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjz0M29h46QAxXTSzABHf_EJFEQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw19udcFl4cxPcGxy68zVzsP
>>18049164And what is the quote from Wujing Zongyao?
>>18049170Google the book.
>>18043906Trying to cite some 14th century novel to prove that ancient Chinese history is fictional is like trying to cite Shakespeare to claim that the Roman Empire never existed.
>>18049178In other words, as I said: "no, there isn't, just he-said-she-said chains that go nowhere". Track them down and at the end you find "oh, it's an incendiary device".
>>18049184In other ways, I'm not going through an ancient text because you're too lazy to do independent research. I gave you the source, the exact formula for gunpowder and explosive weapons is in the book, so Google it.
>>18049187You didn't even give the page you have in mind in a 40+ page document. All of this "China invented gunpowder" silliness comes from chains of bad translation and (sometimes intentional) misunderstanding. Asking for an original source is the simple killer of this theory since advocates can never give it.
>>18049194China did invent gunpowder. They were the first people to invent it. It's basically 100% known by any serious historians.The real mystery (and a more interesting one) is how Europeans started using it...because the problem is that it first pop ups in the records in Spain I believe before it pops up in Russia or the Middle East. What is weird that in Europe, the first term for it is "gun"powder, which implies they knew it was meant for the military. In China, it was just called "fire powder".We know the Europeans/Muslims in Spain got it from China somehow, because they were using the Chinese recipe
>>18049194I gave you the source, so look it up. Saying a source is false because you want it quote by quote spoon fed to you is juvenile and fallacious. If you want to be an ignorant manbaby proclaiming that Europeans invented gunpowder contrary to written and archaeological evidence backed by every scholar both Western and Eastern, just because you refuse to research them despite sources given, then feel free to have fun with that. Ignorance is bliss after all.
>>18049201>>18049205If China invented gunpowder, bring forward a primary Chinese source that discusses it prior to Europeans using it.You can't. You will only find descriptions of incendiary devices.I don't want a chain of X saying Y saying Z totally says it. I want a quote from your primary source.
>>18049211https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wujing_Zongyao
>>18049216"Wikipedia says that X says that Y says that Z says-"Give me the direct quote from your primary source.You're struggling because you can't. it isn't in there. Just descriptions of incendiaries.
>>18049211Just a quick cursory glance at the ol' Google says there is no mention of gunpowder in Europe before 1326. While in China, they had been experimenting with projectiles using proto-gunpowder for centuries, so.....Again, why are you so vehemently getting worked up on a topic that is pretty concrete?
>>18049228>Just a quick cursory glance at the ol' GoogleIs all the evidence that you'll find for this, and it's just exaggerations of incendiary devices.
>>18049216Not fully bought into this thread's thesis but I do think it is interesting to note that the formulae in the Wujing Zongyao text, from a chemists perspective, are simply not 'explosive' in the sense gunpowder is, they are wet-burning compounds. What makes gunpowder interesting is not simply its combustibility, it's the massive volume of gas generated.
>>18049224Alright find, with 0.2 seconds of Googling, here's the passage retard. Go down to where it says gunpowder method. But let me guess, now you're going to say "That doesn't count, it's not the physical book! That doesn't count, it's in Chinese! That doesn't count, the gunpowder recipe isn't to my liking! That doesn't count, I don't want to scroll down!"https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E7%B6%93%E7%B8%BD%E8%A6%81/%E5%89%8D%E9%9B%86/%E5%8D%B7%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C
>>18049273Where does this describe gunpowder at all? This section talks a lot about artillery pieces, other things etc. can you just quote (in Chinese is fine) the section you want to cite?
>>18049304No, because that would just be a "he said, she said" which you could have read on the wiki. Look at the source you wanted. Scroll all the way down until you see the illustrations, then go back up 3 figures. Right below that third figure discussing cannons and use of artillery, he gives the formula for gunpowder. He also talks about applying gunpowder to arrows early in the next volume
For real, why is not being able to invent gunpowder first such a big fucking deal to Eurocels?Like dude, they won. They came up with way more important technological developments surrounding gunpowder weapons than the Chinese by the 1500s. But no they have to invent like 3 fictional German/Italian monks that supposedly invented it first in the 1200s (funnily, 300 years after gunpowder was actually invented) that are so fucking bullshit even 1800s racist ass European historians & scholars didn not believe them.This is some next-level insecurity.
>>18049273>>18049351That was actually a different guy in >>18049304 replying to you for whatever reason.This is a perfect, textbook example of exactly what I have been saying. Look at this bit:"凡炮,軍中之利器也,攻守師行皆用之,守宜重,行宜輕,故旋風、單梢、虎蹲,師行即用之,守則皆可設也。又陣中可以打其隊兵,中其行伍,則不整矣。若燔芻糧積聚及城門、敵棚、頭車之類,則上施大球、火鷂、大槍以放之(雄軍梢不可放,以其力小故也。其大球等,重及十二斤)。""In sum: siege weapons [NOTE: some translate the word here, 炮, as "cannons"] are valuable in both attack and defense; in field maneuvers they should be light, for defense heavy. Thus the whirlwind, single, tiger‑squat types are used in the field; in defense, all may be installed. The siege weapons also may target enemy formations to disrupt their order. If the enemy piles brushwood and provisions near the walls, use large fireballs, fire hawks, large staffs to burn them (strong cannons should not be used for this because of their weaker power). The large fireballs may reach 12 jin."Talking, as always, about burning things and fire with the word some translate "cannon". "Cannon" here being translated from 炮, which just means a projectile siege weapon, especially one that uses fire. The word is used for cooking too, to give you an indication.These are just firepot throwers. And look at the recipe for "gunpowder":晉州硫黃十四兩,窩黃七兩,焰硝二斤半,麻茹一兩,幹漆一兩,砒黃一兩,定粉一兩,竹茹一兩,黃丹一兩,黃蠟半兩,清油一分,桐油半兩,松脂一十四兩,濃油一分。This has wax, pine resin, and oil. It isn't gunpowder, its just an incendiary mixture. The only strong oxidizer present is saltpeter. The rest is fuel for strong, sticky flame.
>>18049648>300 years after gunpowder was actually inventedAnd you can give us an original source describing gunpowder? Because, as I and other sane people have continually pointed out, all that gets brought forward are napalm-like Greek fire-style incendiary mixtures like >>18049673. We care about actual historical truth, not spun narratives based on blatant mistranslation and exaggeration. It isn't some ethnic thing about Europe, modern Asia is obviously very capable of innovation. But things like China supposedly inventing gunpowder keep investigators from really uncovering what specifically made Europe, at this time, uniquely able to innovate beyond the past unlike anywhere else. Talking about false examples from elsewhere prevents the question from really being examined and solved.
>>18049685>But things like China supposedly inventing gunpowder keep investigators from really uncovering what specifically made EuropeThis is some next level victimhood.
>>18049688It's a serious "we wuz kangs" energy
>>18049688You're throwing out meaningless buzzwords at this point. Are you really denying that recently, the question of "why was Europe from about 1300-1900 so uniquely innovative?" has largely amounted to "they weren't"? Chinese supposed gunpowder is a universally used example.It's a fascinating question and the answer could be extremely important, but for ideological reasons some want to pretend as if it isn't a valid question at all.I'm not opposed to gunpowder actually having been invented in China, but as I've said and as I've shown, once you actually look at the sources, its just the equivalent of Greek Fire. Incendiary mixtures, not gunpowder.
>>18049704Its the polar opposite. The reasoning displayed by people who advocate for China inventing gunpowder feels exactly like the reasoning used by Afrocentrists when they attempt to argue that, say, Egypt was a Black society. You'll often hear them using an imprecise translation of a term that Herodotus used calling the inhabitants something that a particular English translation rendered "black" - really more like "swarthy" than "negro". Mistranslation and willful misunderstanding that gets repeated over and over but that is resolved by looking at the original source and what it actually says.That's what we're doing here and when you do it, you see that its just incendiary devices and substances, not something capable of powering a cannon or a gun.
>>18049673Every historian agrees that the Chinese used gunpowder as a low explosive incendiary tool, that's not news. The purpose was fire, not explosion to shoot guns. The heart of your argument comes down to you dismissing Chinese gunpowder as being gunpowder because it was not as refined and used for the explosive purposes of firing guns as gunpowder later became hundreds of years later, even though the essential ingredients were still saltpeter and sulfur.
>>18049078>no rebuttal>goalpost moving>muh gunpowder empiresLet me reiterate >lmao at wumaoabsolutely historically illiterate low iq shitskin
>>18049109don't waste your breathhe's some cheap wannabe troll
Holy shit, Chang got INCINERATED itt
Chinese Cinema, especially Hong Kong Cinema, unironically did a lot of damage to learning about Chinese Martial Arts for popularizing weirdo Southern Chinese Peasant martial practices as the face of Chinese Martial Arts, which has a lot of Spiritual BS thrown in that would be impractical in actual fighting not to mention presenting wrong info to the public (i.e. Shaolin supposedly got their fighting style from some Indian monk, etc. etc.)Its so bad that in modern Mainland & Taiwan China there are HEMA-style movements against """""traditional"""""" Chinese martial arts where you have kids studying Ancient/Imperial military manuals instead of "hurr what sifu/masters says."
>>18049781I mean it would be helpful to do both. As far as i know a lot of elderly taichi classes near my boondocks have instructors who were taught Yang family drills which is the same thing Qijiguang depicts. I do find that a lot of "lineage" schools have a bit of an ego on them.
>>18048277>The earliest unambiguous projectile gunpowder weapon, not an incendiary device, is the Pot de FerHow someone can be this confidently wrong and retarded is beyond me.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon
>>18049737That's not gunpowder. That's just an incendiary mixture and those go back to time immemorial. By that logic whoever invented the saw invented "gunpowder" since you can use sawdust mixed with oil and wax in a similar way.>and used for the explosive purposes of firing guns as gunpowder later became hundreds of years laterExactly. If it can't be used for a gun then it isn't gunpowder.>the essential ingredients were still saltpeter and sulfurAnd incapable of being used for a gun. You might as well say that the first people to mine uranium invented the atomic bomb. Having ingredients means nearly nothing. You have to refine and develop them further. It's disingenuous and dishonest to call what they had "gunpowder".>>18050488I said unambiguous. We have clear images of a pot de fer being used as a projectile gunpowder weapon. Your "cannon" there could easily be a nozzle for incendiary powder, which the source at >>18049673 describes extensively.Essentially no different from what had been done with substances like Greek Fire for ages.
>>18051001NTA but are we really going to ignore the copious amounts of other evidence that existed during the time? They've used gunpowder for other projectile weapons too. Firecrackers weren't possible with non explosive incendiary powder. You're unironically doing all this mental gymnastics just to cope that Europe didn't invent proto-firearms.
I know they found what could be considered a historical Xia evidence and the oracle bones but a lot of the early Xia and Shang history is still probably straight up legend.
>>18051020That's the heart of the matter. There is no "copious amounts of other evidence". Once you dig into it it's all exactly like what we've seen in this thread:"Here! This book has gunpowder!"And it's just an incendiary mixture which could never be used for a gun or a cannon."This is a cannon!"But there's no sign it's anything but a nozzle for flame hoses, which Chinese military manuals DO explicitly talk about.>They've used gunpowder for other projectile weapons too. What, when, and based on what sources?>Firecrackers weren't possible with non explosive incendiary powderWhat specific device mentioned in what specific primary source are you talking about?
>>18051001>Exactly. If it can't be used for a gun then it isn't gunpowder.And you just proved my point right here. You're pedantically hung up on the English word of gunpowder having gun in it and insisting it must be used to fire a gun or it isn't gunpowder. If I said instead that the Chinese invented blackpowder, the other English word for gunpowder, or the Mandarin word huoyao, would you cry less about it? Fact remains, it is gunpowder. Do you have any scholarly sources that are academically debunking Chinese gunpowder?
>>18051034>>18051034You're one online contrarian vs a universally agreed upon opinion by academia and multiple historians. The primary source was given to you multiple times in this thread you've simply decided to dismiss it because it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to spin. Wujing Zongyao's recipe was the earliest recorded recipe of what you can classify as gunpowder whether it was usable for gun or cannon is irrelevant because it's not an actual requirement for it be "gunpowder">What, when, and based on what sources?I literally showed you a relic of a Hwacha which is based off of a 10th century design. The Chinese conducted warfare with their neighbors so it's not just them that confirmed gunpowder usage and firearms.
>>18051100>>18051160So what you actually mean is "the Chinese had incendiaries that included saltpetre". You admit that their formulation cannot be used for firearms. Look at the definition of "gunpowder" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gunpowder: "any of various powders used in guns as propelling charges" or "an explosive mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur used in gunnery and blasting". Both of these exclude incendiary mixtures like those since those are not explosive and cannot be used for gunnery, blasting, or as propelling charges.>vs a universally agreed upon opinion by academiaAppeal to authority is a fallacy. If the conclusion is good then there should be solid evidence for it regardless of who believes it. If you're any student of history, one of the first things you learn is that subcultures can get foolish beliefs for foolish reasons very easily.>whether it was usable for gun or cannon is irrelevant because it's not an actual requirement for it be "gunpowder"In other words this depends on disingenuous, dishonest wording and this is contradicted by the very basic meaning of the word in the dictionary.>I literally showed you a relic of a Hwacha which is based off of a 10th century designThere were no gunpowder hwacha in the 10th century. They are from the 15th century. You might as well have posted a picture of a QBZ-95.>The Chinese conducted warfare with their neighbors so it's not just them that confirmed gunpowder usage and firearms.What primary source's account do you have in mind?
I think most likely both sides in this thread could a little mistaken and it happened in the middle, between Europe and China, in Arabia. https://www.academia.edu/53809057/Chemical_Technology_in_Arabic_Military_Treatises seems very provocative to say the least
>>18051739Perfectly fits the English definitions here:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gunpowderhttps://www.britannica.com/technology/gunpowderAgain, your entire argument is based on semantics over substance i.e. "gunpowder must be used to shoot guns or it is not gunpowder". Is a weaker gunpowder charge or a wet gunpowder charge, no longer to be considered as gunpowder as it cannot be used for shooting? Show me an actual study, academic as to be credible and not made up, disproving Chinese gunpowder as being actual gunpowder and Chinese weaponry as having used it prior to Europeans. Asking for credible research to back a claim is not an appeal to authority, as the only claims you maintain are entirely semantic. That student of history line also very much applies to your semantic based argument which is why I ask for a more credible study.
>>18043906Kinda suspicious of the terracotta army and anything before like 300 bc
>>18051762It doesn't. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gunpowder says "an explosive mixture of substances", which this was not. And your Britannica link calls it "gunpowder, any of several low-explosive mixtures used as propelling charges in guns and as blasting agents in mining". An incendiary mixture cannot be a propelling charge nor a blasting agent.>Again, your entire argument is based on semantics It's really, really not. It's based on chemistry and history.>Show me an actual study, academicIf that's what you want you'll have to talk to someone else. I deal in primary sources. All history derives from primary sources and they firmly support me on this issue.
>>18051775Their arguments for a 5,000 year old civilisation are suspect too, and seem akin to the English claiming an equivalent on account of Stonehenge and the like
>>18052104I mean i can see iron age or late bronze age but 5,000 is too much for me. Plus they've been caught lying in the past
>>18052104>>18052279The reason they can make the claim is that modern Chinese are directly descended from the people who built Xia whereas the modern English are not descended from the people who built Stonehenge but people who moved in later.
Literally every single neighbor of China's had gunpowder weapons earlier than Eurangutans. Even Mongols pointed out how explosives and gunpowder weapons were some of the biggest problems they had invading China. Cope harder eurocel.
>>18052005>the explosive mixture can't be regarded as explosive since it wasn't used to shoot gunsChinese gunpowder was still an explosive mixture even if used to create fire. Also, continue reading the second link. And yet, you've argued using nothing but semantics and have provided exactly zero historical sources or references, but sure thing.
>>18052299Not all Chinese can argue that. Southern Chinese were originally of the same people who later became the Vietnamese before conquest and integration into the Han Chinese identity.
>>18052299The English are descendants of the people that built Stonehenge. I dont know if the Chinese are the descendants of the people that built "xia", which the last I checked might not have even existed
>>18052309Wignats just love to fucking lie.
>>18052410>Chinese gunpowder was still an explosive mixtureThis was directly refuted when we looked at your supposed gunpowder recipe. Chemically the mixture does not and cannot explode. It contains ingredients even someone with zero chemical background should recognize as patently being for a sticky napalm-like Greek Fire-style weapon, like wax. >And yet, you've argued using nothing but semanticsI've demonstrated that it's a powder that doesn't explode. If you insist on calling that gunpowder still, then it becomes a semantic argument. And incendiary powders are not, by very dictionary definition of the word, gunpowder. >and have provided exactly zero historical sources or referenceWe looked at your own source and saw it. _You_ showed us that they didn't have gunpowder. _Your_ source gave us the composition of the actual substance falsely being touted as "gunpowder", and it most definitively is not.>>18052309Can you support this claim with primary sources?>>18052986I'm not a White Nationalist. I just look at the history.
