the designs in modern furniture, works of art, and past modern art also. I am a proud American and honored to recognize all of your contributions to the only language that speaks true peace, ART in music, in design, in Artists, in food, in your cultures! bless all of you each and every day!
2021 im hearing this song then i have in mind that movie which put me straight face to red cliff.. Three kingdoms my only and one hystorical prefered fact im never get bored knowing all events and fact during this period
yes absolutely beautiful music, just like Kokia makes you want to learn about the culture of Japan, its language, its the language of the arts, that brings all societies and countries togeher, I love the Films born out of Asia/Orient, and it does make me want to learn about them. I love the Salsa in all those countries and how it is expressed Korea, Japan, China, Viet Nam, Malaysia, etc. Hey I love you all & pray for your triumphant in the all the arts to continue, I love the art work &
"barbarians" as a concept didn't even exist until the roman empire split in half. at which point it wasn't even called the roman empire anymore. when people talk about the ancient romans as a dominant military they're generally talking about the 150 years before and the ~200 years after the time of augustus. the roman empire at the apex of its power and size was contemporary with the han dynasty and in fact had some contact and minor trade relations with the chinese at this time. the roman military of the time from augustus to marcus aurelius was fighting standing armies. warfare in classical antiquity was similar all over the world. the reason european warfare is imagined as smaller scale than chinese warfare is because our popular conception of european warfare in history is focused on the medieval period. but these were wars between feudal lords. before and after the medieval period wars were much larger because states were much larger. it wasn't until the hundred years' war that england and france, the arguably strongest european powers of the time, started maintaining standing armies. but ironically before england was colonized at all, standing armies were common even among the "barbarians" that fought the late western roman empire. strictly speaking "barbarians" was a term for some nomadic civilizations, its real meaning is similar to that of "huns" in china. but the tribes that you're thinking of are germanic and gallic tribes. although they weren't as technologically advanced as the romans, they were just as serious about war as everyone else back then. if you weren't serious about huge scale war at the time then you'd just get swallowed up by a classical empire, isn't that obvious? if the "barbarians" didn't have standing armies, then how did they manage to exist in such close proximity to the roman empire? so it really doesn't matter who the romans fought, because every civilization that actually gave the romans any difficulty worth mentioning was serious about its military. but you're not even right about who the romans fought. the roman empire of this time stretched vertically from northumbria to egypt, and horizontally from spain to babylonia. and naturally it had conflicts with many of the different civilizations along its borders, and many within its borders too. these places are HUGE distances from each other so they can't all be "barbarians." the gallic tribes that julius caesar and augustus and tiberius fought were nothing like the parthians that killed marcus crassus. how could they be, they're on opposite sides of the planet? rome fought an absurd number of wars against basically every ethnic group in europe, north africa, and asia minor. rome's wars against carthage gave birth to the largest known naval battle of all history. far more ships and far more men than the second largest. china had many massive naval battles too. it's hard to know exactly how large ancient battles were, since sources vary so wildly in their estimates. no doubt china is just as rich a source of epic history as rome. it's one of my greatest interests. but trying to compare them along these lines is totally futile. your statement isn't just meaningless, it makes you look totally ignorant. anyone who thinks they can just hand-wave the issue with such a simplistic statement clearly has no idea what they're talking about. we're talking about two different civilizations that span multiple millennia. which roman empire against which chinese empire? where are they fighting? there are so many factors to consider, but you jump right to this delusional idea that romans didn't fight regular armies because their enemies were barbarians? regardless of which empire was actually stronger, it's wrong on so many levels. not only did rome fight tons of standing armies, not only did rome have all sorts of advanced enemies other than "barbarians," but chinese empires also fought lots of barbarians. china's most consistent enemies were exactly what you would call barbarians. the xiongnu, the huns, the mongols, whatever. the mongols CONQUERED china. basically nomadic barbarians conquered china and turned it into the yuan dynasty. so you can see why your statement is so ridiculous. in reality it's just impossible to answer a question like this. you'd have to settle on one, very specific and detailed scenario, and play it out. but 1) you still wouldn't get a perfectly accurate answer, and 2) for every scenario you could come up with where rome wins, you could also come up with another where china wins. after all they fluctuated massively in basically every dimension over the many, many centuries they each existed. it's not just like that for two giant, roughly equally powerful empires either. if we asked whether the roman empire could beat the thracians we'd have the same problem on our hands, even though most people would say "of course the romans could beat the thracians - they did." but they didn't beat the thracians in every scenario and there could have been many scenarios where if the romans attacked they would have lost. they just didn't attack in those scenarios. this is definitely even harder when the opponents are as evenly matched as rome and china though. it all depends on unpredictable factors, like cohesion, motivation, funding, geopolitics of adjacent regions, and pure random chance. i'm not saying china could never have beaten rome, or even that china could not have been on average stronger than rome. i'm just saying you can't make a blanket statement that china would most likely beat rome, since it's so incredibly vague and unqualified.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Taro Iwashiro is the fuckin' Genius a man‼️
Superb! One of the best movies in history...
Ugh, I'd die to play this music.
Yes you would. Some things are worth dying for, son.
such a magnificent movie. master luo guanzhong would not be ashamed to watch this, I think.
the designs in modern furniture, works of art, and past modern art also. I am a proud American and honored to recognize all of your contributions to the only language that speaks true peace, ART in music, in design, in Artists, in food, in your cultures! bless all of you each and every day!
2021 im hearing this song then i have in mind that movie which put me straight face to red cliff.. Three kingdoms my only and one hystorical prefered fact im never get bored knowing all events and fact during this period
Stuff that changed the world changing it again every 2000 years, i bet in 2000 years they will remake this.
Had a look on wikipedia, cant believe that it actually happened that there were actually fire ships used agains Cao Cao's army.
yes absolutely beautiful music, just like Kokia makes you want to learn about the culture of Japan, its language, its the language of the arts, that brings all societies and countries togeher, I love the Films born out of Asia/Orient, and it does make me want to learn about them. I love the Salsa in all those countries and how it is expressed Korea, Japan, China, Viet Nam, Malaysia, etc. Hey I love you all & pray for your triumphant in the all the arts to continue, I love the art work &
tbm adoro essa
MUSIC FOR HEROES!!!
Yes it is!
Wow
@eduardocarter3
Agree! Probably because it's a true story, one of the greatest battles in the history of China.
2021
2020?
Norwegian here :)
0:30
The open sounds like Uncharted or should I say Uncharted sounds like this one ?
@Talancir agreed
true story :P
2019?
2020 here :)
@@Spino2Earth 2021
2022
2:31
When the red cliff 3 :( i want to look
2024?
@MsOliviaGarden battle of chibi ftw!!
2023
Loved the movie also the fact that this really happened ^^
The chinese would've crushed the romans lol
Are you really sure about that? Because I'm not certain about that. I'm very interested in hearing it though
@@Javissht what lol
"barbarians" as a concept didn't even exist until the roman empire split in half. at which point it wasn't even called the roman empire anymore. when people talk about the ancient romans as a dominant military they're generally talking about the 150 years before and the ~200 years after the time of augustus. the roman empire at the apex of its power and size was contemporary with the han dynasty and in fact had some contact and minor trade relations with the chinese at this time. the roman military of the time from augustus to marcus aurelius was fighting standing armies. warfare in classical antiquity was similar all over the world. the reason european warfare is imagined as smaller scale than chinese warfare is because our popular conception of european warfare in history is focused on the medieval period. but these were wars between feudal lords. before and after the medieval period wars were much larger because states were much larger. it wasn't until the hundred years' war that england and france, the arguably strongest european powers of the time, started maintaining standing armies. but ironically before england was colonized at all, standing armies were common even among the "barbarians" that fought the late western roman empire. strictly speaking "barbarians" was a term for some nomadic civilizations, its real meaning is similar to that of "huns" in china. but the tribes that you're thinking of are germanic and gallic tribes. although they weren't as technologically advanced as the romans, they were just as serious about war as everyone else back then. if you weren't serious about huge scale war at the time then you'd just get swallowed up by a classical empire, isn't that obvious? if the "barbarians" didn't have standing armies, then how did they manage to exist in such close proximity to the roman empire? so it really doesn't matter who the romans fought, because every civilization that actually gave the romans any difficulty worth mentioning was serious about its military. but you're not even right about who the romans fought. the roman empire of this time stretched vertically from northumbria to egypt, and horizontally from spain to babylonia. and naturally it had conflicts with many of the different civilizations along its borders, and many within its borders too. these places are HUGE distances from each other so they can't all be "barbarians." the gallic tribes that julius caesar and augustus and tiberius fought were nothing like the parthians that killed marcus crassus. how could they be, they're on opposite sides of the planet? rome fought an absurd number of wars against basically every ethnic group in europe, north africa, and asia minor. rome's wars against carthage gave birth to the largest known naval battle of all history. far more ships and far more men than the second largest. china had many massive naval battles too. it's hard to know exactly how large ancient battles were, since sources vary so wildly in their estimates. no doubt china is just as rich a source of epic history as rome. it's one of my greatest interests. but trying to compare them along these lines is totally futile. your statement isn't just meaningless, it makes you look totally ignorant. anyone who thinks they can just hand-wave the issue with such a simplistic statement clearly has no idea what they're talking about. we're talking about two different civilizations that span multiple millennia. which roman empire against which chinese empire? where are they fighting? there are so many factors to consider, but you jump right to this delusional idea that romans didn't fight regular armies because their enemies were barbarians? regardless of which empire was actually stronger, it's wrong on so many levels. not only did rome fight tons of standing armies, not only did rome have all sorts of advanced enemies other than "barbarians," but chinese empires also fought lots of barbarians. china's most consistent enemies were exactly what you would call barbarians. the xiongnu, the huns, the mongols, whatever. the mongols CONQUERED china. basically nomadic barbarians conquered china and turned it into the yuan dynasty. so you can see why your statement is so ridiculous. in reality it's just impossible to answer a question like this. you'd have to settle on one, very specific and detailed scenario, and play it out. but 1) you still wouldn't get a perfectly accurate answer, and 2) for every scenario you could come up with where rome wins, you could also come up with another where china wins. after all they fluctuated massively in basically every dimension over the many, many centuries they each existed. it's not just like that for two giant, roughly equally powerful empires either. if we asked whether the roman empire could beat the thracians we'd have the same problem on our hands, even though most people would say "of course the romans could beat the thracians - they did." but they didn't beat the thracians in every scenario and there could have been many scenarios where if the romans attacked they would have lost. they just didn't attack in those scenarios. this is definitely even harder when the opponents are as evenly matched as rome and china though. it all depends on unpredictable factors, like cohesion, motivation, funding, geopolitics of adjacent regions, and pure random chance. i'm not saying china could never have beaten rome, or even that china could not have been on average stronger than rome. i'm just saying you can't make a blanket statement that china would most likely beat rome, since it's so incredibly vague and unqualified.