PDA

View Full Version : Mughal India vs Qing China



Silverbackman
16-07-07, 09:00
The Mughal Empire was India's last dynasty before modern India. The Qing dynasty was China's last dynasty before modern China. The Indian Mughals were the most wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time, while the Chinese Qing were the most technologically advanced at the time. Both empires were dominate until the 19th century, until Europe finally found a way to defeat Asia! Divide and conquer, lie, cheat, and steal (no offense Europe, at least you finally got the power after that long slumber during the Middle Ages).

So who would win in a war betweem Mughal India and Qing China at their heights. Let's say Mughal India vs Qing China during the 1700s (right before the rise of Napoleon of France in Europe). Both civilizations used gunpowder weapons and guns.......so it is hard to say. One military advantage I see for Mughal India that Qing China doesn't have (and worked well against Alexander the Great a couple thousand years before) is War Elephents. During the Mughal's time they even combined War Elephents with heavy rocket canons and gas bombs. However one advantage of China is that they were more unified as one people, while India was less unified like Europe.

What do you think? Vote in the poll and discuss.

Jagger
12-09-07, 08:18
If they fought in China, then the Qing Dynasty would win.

If they fought in India, then the Mughal Dynasty would win.

But If they fought in the border between the China and India, then we will never know.

Templar
04-01-13, 19:16
The Mughal Empire was India's last dynasty before modern India. The Qing dynasty was China's last dynasty before modern China. The Indian Mughals were the most wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time, while the Chinese Qing were the most technologically advanced at the time. Both empires were dominate until the 19th century, until Europe finally found a way to defeat Asia! Divide and conquer, lie, cheat, and steal (no offense Europe, at least you finally got the power after that long slumber during the Middle Ages).

So who would win in a war betweem Mughal India and Qing China at their heights. Let's say Mughal India vs Qing China during the 1700s (right before the rise of Napoleon of France in Europe). Both civilizations used gunpowder weapons and guns.......so it is hard to say. One military advantage I see for Mughal India that Qing China doesn't have (and worked well against Alexander the Great a couple thousand years before) is War Elephents. During the Mughal's time they even combined War Elephents with heavy rocket canons and gas bombs. However one advantage of China is that they were more unified as one people, while India was less unified like Europe.

What do you think? Vote in the poll and discuss.

First of all, let me address your statement regarding this: "The Indian Mughals were the most wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time, while the Chinese Qing were the most technologically advanced at the time. Both empires were dominate until the 19th century, until Europe finally found a way to defeat Asia! Divide and conquer, lie, cheat, and steal"

That is really biased and also inaccurate. Europeans in terms of mathematics were far ahead of both India and China long before the 1800s,for example when Portuguese missionaries visited China the Chinese were amazed at their level of knowledge.

European armor as early as the 1350s was far better anything else found in the world at the time.

European fortifications even during most of the Middle Ages were sturdy stone structures, while the Chinese usually used flammable wood.

In terms of warfare technology contrary to what many think, 14th century European plate armor not only was extremely protective, but it was also lighter and less restrictive than it seemed.

The European printing press was far superior to the Chinese one, and it was also invented completely independently.

The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and in ineffective weapons, Europeans invented the musket which then led to all further gun development.

India wasn't wealthy because they were technologically advanced, they were wealthy due to a lot of valuable gem deposits being present there, and because they were a very old civilization and therefore of-course had a very large population (this also applies to China). And it is only a very old population due to its climate which is suitable for farming. Civilizations develop where the environment is suitable for it.

Templar
04-01-13, 19:23
Also keep in mind that during ancient times, the Greco-Roman world was far ahead of both India and China. The Renaissance was merely a rebirth of the old European traditions which were mostly destroyed after the fall of the Roman Empire. Even after the fall of the empire, the continent was under constant invasions from all sides, Turkic tribes such as the Magyars from the East, Germanic tribes from the North, Arabs from the South, etc. India and especially China were both far more isolated and better protected from invasions. The only real threat to the Chinese came from the North, and the only threat to India was from the North-West. Western civilization on the other hand was exposed from the North, East, and South.

Now regarding who would have won: China or India? I think probably the Chinese, due to their more advanced military technology, larger population, and the fact that they were the more unified country (most ethnically Han and without any major religious divisions).

EcksDee
10-09-17, 11:19
First of all, let me address your statement regarding this: "The Indian Mughals were the most wealthiest civilization on Earth at the time, while the Chinese Qing were the most technologically advanced at the time. Both empires were dominate until the 19th century, until Europe finally found a way to defeat Asia! Divide and conquer, lie, cheat, and steal"

That is really biased and also inaccurate. Europeans in terms of mathematics were far ahead of both India and China long before the 1800s,for example when Portuguese missionaries visited China the Chinese were amazed at their level of knowledge.

European armor as early as the 1350s was far better anything else found in the world at the time.

European fortifications even during most of the Middle Ages were sturdy stone structures, while the Chinese usually used flammable wood.

In terms of warfare technology contrary to what many think, 14th century European plate armor not only was extremely protective, but it was also lighter and less restrictive than it seemed.

The European printing press was far superior to the Chinese one, and it was also invented completely independently.

The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and in ineffective weapons, Europeans invented the musket which then led to all further gun development.

India wasn't wealthy because they were technologically advanced, they were wealthy due to a lot of valuable gem deposits being present there, and because they were a very old civilization and therefore of-course had a very large population (this also applies to China). And it is only a very old population due to its climate which is suitable for farming. Civilizations develop where the environment is suitable for it.
I contest the idea that Europeans were more mathematically advanced than India before Newton and Leibniz. Developing better armor was unnecessary for the Chinese because they could just give a ton of soldiers low-quality armor and pointless because they were up against powerful crossbows and gunpowder-based weapons, which were not only used for fireworks, but also for hand cannons. While I agree the Qing were not the most advanced in the world by their time, the Song certainly were. Large stone castles were not in use for most of the Middle Ages, only in the latter part. And the Europeans still made extensive use of motte-and-bailey castles, as the Chinese had walled cities. And while the Greeks and Romans were a bit ahead of the east mathematically and scientifically in their heyday, the roles were reversed in the postclassical period, until they were reversed back during the Enlightenment.