The American Civil War and the Taiping Rebellion took place concurrently

there is versatility in a musket, you won't find infantry whose sole purpose is melee

>hurr durr me only pretend to be retard

Were there any recorded incidents of people being stabbed or beaten with the battle standards in the Civil War?

more importantly, is that a primary weapon of a class of troop?

>Geez how could people be stabbed or beaten to death by spears, sabers, bayonets...or any weapons they got in war

... i know this is hist but your math is some real shit

what's a few hundred million chinese among friends :)

mass famine

>class
It's not a videogame.

>there was a civil war in China being fought with spears and swords and bows
Nah.

More like Asian pike & shot with a fuckload of cannon. By this point, bows were largely used by the cavalry.

There's a reason why the Qing soldier was like his counterparts in the west: by the 1700s, there also was an abandonment of armor for uniforms so as to dedicate most of the metal to equip massive state armies with weapons, many of which were matchlock muskets,

>1860
>still using mass pike-wielding infantry charges against muskets and cannon

I like how Americans think they were the hot shit in this thread when during the ACW, they were backwards in comparison to European armies lmao.

>inb4 hurdurr Gapling gahn, Muh Ironclads!

Sure thing, Francois

Designed and produced before the needle gun:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1819_Hall_rifle

Breech-loading carbines and rifles of various designs were used extensively in the ACW, and by the end of the war muzzle-loading muskets were considered obsolete, although obviously the sheer size of the armies at the time precluded replacing the firearms of every soldier. Pic related is Union soldiers with Sharps carbines. Note the man reloading using the breech mechanism.

forgot pic

meh...Brits were using Enfields still. the Union started using Henry Rifles during the war and the regular Army was with equipped with the model 1866 Springfield shortly after the war.

everybody was behind the French (Chasspot master race) but even with that advantage they still lost in '71.

replying to a bait post

>*deploys in a line instead of a skirmish line*
Also cavalry was still viable during the time: it was literally the only fast mover in the battlefield.

Only reason why you Americans don't have proper cavalry is the wild terrain of America prioritized mounted infantry- an all dragoon force- instead of shit like hussars, cuirassiers, and specialist cavalrymen.

Besides every modern cavalryman had firearms.

>An unadopted weapon.
>Specialist weapons.
Try standard issue niqqa.

Anyway enough with shitting on backwards Americans. I want to know what weapon these guys are holding

Most likely Changdao. Chinese zweihanders basically.

They did become standard issue shortly after the war . Keep in mind that the size of the Prussian army in 1866 was about a sixth of the size of the USA and CSA armies during the war. You're not going to equip rapidly mobilizing militias with the latest armaments, most would initially just use their personal hunting rifles. Equipping a professional army for a planned war against a separate state is a different animal.

US cavalry was probably the best in the world in the later half of the 19th century. The Boers fought the Brits using a similar style and tactics to a devastating effect.

bingo. the size of the American military (North & South) went from 17,000 to north of 2 million in about 18 months.

>What's a bayonet then?

British military observers were shocked by how rare bayonet charges were between Americans. One of the reasons the casualty rates were so astronomical is because the Americans just kept shooting each other instead of closing with their bayonets.

you're a fucking retard
see

Franco-Prussian war also proved that shock cavalry like Cuirassiers and Uhlans were utterly useless against infantry, and only effective role for cavalry would be reconnaissance and skirmishing against second-line units.

In those roles, Dragoons and their carbines are greatly superior to sword and lance cavalry.

>Lots of civil war battles had charges that became melees when the lines closed in on each other since the reload times were so long.

not really...even Pickett's Charge only saw a very brief melee. mostly they'd stop and shoot at each other.

With rifled muskets and minie balls extending effective range out to 300 meters, bayonet charges are a lot harder to pull off than 1815.

The biggest bayonet charge of the war ended in catastrophic failure because 300 meters was just too much ground to cover. The Confederates lost almost 10,000 men while inflicting less than 2,000 casualties.

You do know that Henry repeating rifles saw frequent use in the Civil War, right? You know, the one with the 15 round tube magazine firing .44?

talk shit get hit, faggot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle#History

the Eastern US is hilly with a lot of foliage...even in line of battle there's lots of cover. Pic related is where some of the bloodiest and closest fighting of the Civil War took place.

Chickamauga...

Gettysburg....

US Civil war lasted 4 years.

2/4 = 0.5 So roughly 0.5% Americans were lost each year.

Chinese conflict lasted 14 years.

7/14 = 0.5 Equally so, roughly 0.5% of population was lost each year in China

also the 600k figure is flawed it only counts military dead and probably is under-counting those as well.

real death toll was likely closer to 1 million.

Actually during the trench battles during the final days around Richmond, the Confederates used trench weapons and sometimes pointed sticks because the embargo and lack of Southern industry.

>Franco-Prussian war also proved that shock cavalry like Cuirassiers and Uhlans
>Literally one of the most legendary actions of the war was the Death Ride by the Prussian cavalry.

Dragooniggery is nothing new. See: Russian campaigns in the Far East.

Thanks to based Sherman.

The Qing army during the Taiping Rebellion was a mishmash of the traditional banner armies who fought in traditional formations, foreign-led mercenary armies, and then the minority of modernizing units like Ward's Ever Victorious Army which went by a European playbook, and something in between, such as the force led by Li Hongzhang.

The banner units is kinda interesting since they still fought along the playbook of infantry tactics laid down by Qi Jiguang back in the late Ming period. Except with more firearms I guess.

ACW is kind of weird. War fought innawoods by over a million raw recruits who superficially looked like Napoleonic armies (their rifles were actually much deadlier and effective) yet were backed by modern industry and logistics.

As for Qing, no, it really doesn't make you think at all. Qinq is synonymous with backwardness. There's a reason Japan became a feared Westernized Imperial power while everyone else teamed up to walk all over China. And it Peking.

Even got some good ole trench warfare towards the end.

Is it fair to describe the ACW and the Boer War as sneak previews of WW1?

No.

Trench Warfare is literally what happens when you want to defend a place from an army toting artillery. Or if you want to siege out a defensive position.

Shit happened everywhere since people started using cannons en mass.

Want a preview of WWI? Russo-Japanese war.

Banner armies were a mistake, system designed for organizing barbarian horsefucker archer tribes should never have formed the basis of an organized state army.

>system designed for organizing barbarian horsefucker archer tribes
It was only "barbarian horsefucker army" at the start of the Qing Dynasty.

By the mid Qing Dynasty in the 18th Century, the banners were a mere formality of military organization and included everyone from Manchus, Mongols, and the Han Chinese. The ethnic divvying up of the army dying away once everyone is pretty much simply "Qing Subject" in addition the Manchus realizing they'd get BTFO without guns. Banners basically just became standing army groups.

WE WUZ QINGS N SHIET

Well, they wuz.

>Ming defectors played a massive role in the Qing conquest of China. Han Chinese generals who defected to the Manchus were often given women from the Imperial Aisin Gioro family in marriage while the ordinary soldiers who defected were given non-royal Manchu women as wives. The Qing differentiated between Han bannermen and ordinary Han civilians. Han bannermen were made out of Han Chinese who defected to the Qing up to 1644 and joined the Eight Banners, giving them social and legal privileges in addition to being acculturated to Manchu culture. So many Han defected to the Qing and swelled up the ranks of the Eight Banners that ethnic Manchus became a minority within the Banners, making up only 16% in 1648, with Han bannermen dominating with 75% and Mongol Bannermen making up the rest.[12][13] It was this multi-ethnic force, in which Manchus were only a minority, which conquered China for the Qing.[14] Hong Taiji recognized that Ming Han Chinese defectors were needed by the Manchus in order to assist in the conquest of the Ming, explaining to other Manchus why he needed to treat the Ming defector General Hung Ch'eng-ch'ou leniently.[15]

I meant it because the chinese dudes look like niggers in that picture

Really?

looks black to me

>well place your regiment where there wont be much fighting so you can recover

I love the 20th Maine regiment.

Why didn't the Han rebels just do their own mass overthrow instead of bending the knee to barbarian horsefuckers?

Maybe...maybe I'll just stay home and watch someone burn innocent civilian's homes and wonder how that is based...

>Confederate
>"""Innocent"""

At the time of the ACW only the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe and Prussia fielded that weapon and no other European army had ANYTHING like it. They and the US did have a number of falling falling-block action weapons serving along side cap lock weapons.

The US did have some very interesting developments during and right before the war in the field of firearms.

>30 million

Where are the bodies?

I imagine they were all burned or buried or just left to rot in the fields, or are you suggesting the death toll is just made up?

a statistic
t. Stalin

>Why didn't the Han rebels just do their own mass overthrow instead of bending the knee to barbarian horsefuckers?
Because they were thinking in terms of the Mandate of Heaven, not nationalism.

Whoever returns peace/prosperity to a fucked up China = has mandate. Manchus did that. So they had mandate.

In addition, the Manchus didn't alienate the Han majority like the Mongols did. If anything they bought into Chinese culture that by the time the 1800s rolled by, Manchu was a dying language and the difference between Han and Manchu was academic.

In addition, the Ming dynasty fell in a flurry of rebellion, and most of those rebels were fucking assholes. Nobody liked the anti-Ming rebels: Li Zicheng raped and sacked his way to Beijing. And Zhang "kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill" Xianzhong was fucking nuts. The Manchus really were the lesser evil.

Does people actually believe the Mandate of Heaven and not in a "wink wink nudge nudge" way?

States rights etc etc etc.

Does people actually believe in the legitimacy of the ballot and not in a "wink wink nudge nudge" way?

What are you actually asking?

Everyone knows they just make up numbers whenever it comes to deaths in China or Russia

>tfw just finished reading book about the Taiping Rebellion
>Chinese Gordon tries to give some semblance of honor to Ever Victorious army by allowing crucial set of high ranking to surrender peacefully
>fucking Anhui nigger in charge has them all decapitated and dismembered under his nose immediately after the surrender
>Greatest Taiping Generals are Li Xiucheng (Loyal King), Shi Dakai(Flank King), and Chen Yucheng (the Four Eyed Dog) and their pseudo-prime minister Hong Rengan
>Shi Dakai suffered torture through being sliced incrementally without flinching bartering for the lives of his men but eventually died
>the 4 eyed dog was split from part of his army he sent north while he was under siege. Later he broke out to rejoin them. Little did he know his former subordinate betrayed him and went back to the Qing. Also tortured for days before being executed and most of his army butchered.
>Li tries to save the Heavenly King, only able to save his son. Literally gives up his horse to let him escape.
Captured by Zeng Guofan and tortured to death after a short conversation.
>Rengan forced to try to get an army together from a barren land. Eventually captured and tortured to death as well
>Zeng Guofan, literal savior of the Qing, now governor of everything the Taiping had, literally could overthrow the emperor if he wanted and most people would've loved it. However he's too much of a beta cuck and spends the last 6 years of his life miserably trying to please a child emperor and his mommy making a completely ruined section of land profitable again. Dude literally had half of the Qing army declare loyalty solely to him at the weakest point of Qing power.
>some southern hillbilly talks about the supposed honor of his autistic slave owners
youtu.be/CApiU7kvgB8

Whoops ignore the youtube link

Yes.

Largely because most of the time, the bearer of the Mandate of Heaven is decided by De Facto power (i.e. actually ruling all of China, actually winning your rebellion).

Rebels could declare "WE MANDATE NOW" n shiet for all they want but if they're not victorious, they don't have Mandate. Simple as that.

>Ever Victorious Army

So... did they lose?

China has terrible armies at every stage in it's history. The only times it wins is by sheer numbers or the opposition being horribly unprepared.

Anybody else notice this?

Yes, because the Mandate of Heaven is basically you are the biggest boss of da orkz kind of thing. The obvious problem is that the new ork on the block is gonna hit the reset button on everything and any progress made is largely blank slated

>preparation is key to victory
>bringing numbers is key to victory

Thanks, Hitler!

Few people notice this as it is not true. Most major dynasties had highly competent armies. The most militarily successful dynasty was the Han Dynasty. They fought a major war with the Xiongnu Confederation (basically proto-mongols), which were no pushover, in fact at the time their territory was more or less the size of the Han Dynasty.

Through the use of mounted infantry and crossbow, as well as chariot tabor formations, they delivered a series of crushing defeats.

The Tang Dynasty was also quite militarily successful but at that time the military elite position was handed over to turkish subjects.

The Ming Dynasty was also quite successful in their earlier years. They had a very competent mainly chinese composed military (no more turks as they got massacred by Mongols or fled west). Even in their later years they had essentially peasant militia, but these militias used innovative tactics and were fairly competent. They were able to fight off both local and foreign european threats before succumbing to internal revolution and then conquest by Qing. Despite this in their dying breath they took Taiwan from the Dutch.

Yes, lol at one point they're name was ironic. The first groups that Ward got together got their shit pushed in over and over. They got the proper resources at the proper time to make a difference during a time where Shanghai would've gotten taken (big thing here was recruiting mostly Chinese people who gave a damn about the conflict). After that they didn't do much because they lost Ward, their next guy abdicated after losing, the next guy was a Southernor who personally kicked the shit out of the governor who employed them (because he owed them back pay and the southerner liked his booze) after which he got kicked out and replaced by British Officer Gordon, then the Qing officials tried to get the Southernor back in charge and when the Others refused the Southern guy took a secretly took a bunch of the company's soldiers and one of their boats and defected to the Taiping. Then just before they had to fight their former company he switched back. The EVA under Gordon basically negotiated their surrender as well as the peaceful surrender of a bunch of crucial Taiping commanders but fucking Li Hongzhang sullied the whole thing by massacring the Taiping after it was completed, pissing off everyone with any honor in the world. They were a complete mess, great to read about though.

Name of book?

Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom, some user here recommended it to me actually. The only thing is that it really only talks about the middle part of the war in depth (from the East King's death to the death of the guys I say there) I really want to learn more about the early part of the conflict.

>any progress made is largely blank slated
Not quite. Only time that happened was during the Mongols.

Most of the time all everyone ever did was call the previous dynasty's last few emperors shitty, while recognizing the fact that those guys' dynasties *did* possess the Mandate at one point.

In addition, New Dynasties enfeoff the surviving members of the Previous dynasty's clan and build temples to sacrifice to their ancestors. The practice is called Erwangsanke (二王三恪.) and AFAIK there's no direct translation of the practice, and its purpose is to basically reinforce the continuity of the Realm. Also has roots in Chinese filial practices, in which past dynasties are treated as familial ancestors by the entire state.

For example: Cao Wei enfeoffed the Liu clan of the overthrown Han dynasty as Duke of Shanyang and built a temple on the Han ancestral tombs. The Qing Dynasty enfeoffed the Ming Dynasty's Zhu clan as "the Marquis of Extended Grace," in addition to building a temple and offering sacrifices on the Ming Tombs. The ousted clans basically became China's only nobility following centralization and meritocracy, often supplying incumbent dynasty's with brides and husbands for princes and princesses.

So did the Taiping Rebellion at Anqing and the Qing retaking of Nanjing for sure. Probably more.

Reminder that 100,000 died over hairstyles when the Qing came to power.

Reminder that every dynasty added to the Great Wall (even the nomad ones) and the Grand Canal.

So much for "x dynasty rolls back the achievements of y."

I mean adding onto a wall is hardly progress. Look at the list of chinese inventions after the Song dynasty. Things go terribly wrong somewhere along the line and you end up with the great divergence. I blame the Mandate of Heaven partly for this. It's a system that fucks shit up too much. I mean what if one of those 100,000 people who was murdered because he didnt want to wear a queue the person to innovate ship design in china?

Well i guess it's easy to believe because it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you rule all of china, you have the mandate.
If you try to and fail, you never had it.

The Mongol conquests fucked up pretty much everything from the black sea to the Korean peninsula desu

Just you mainly because its what you're describing isn't really true.

Chinese had few major enemies. The Xiongnu, the Gokturks, the Mongols and the Manchus.

None of those could be considered small or unprepared as they could all field >100K cavalries on multiple occasions.

Aside from those, China's military has been largely relegated to suppressing internal revolts and such.

I did recall saying the Mongols were an exemption.

In addition, the Qing's greatest fault isn't rolling back what the Ming started: on the contrary they continued it to the point of stagnation.

>Hurdurr Song inventions
Yeah, we should all look up to Song corruption and military inefficiency.

>In addition, the Qing's greatest fault isn't rolling back what the Ming started
What do you call the foreign trade restrictions, reinstating serfdom, executing scholars and burning books that disagreed with neoconfucianism?

This.

In addition the Ming wasn't as autistic as the Qing was in dealing with Euronigs.

>barely remembered Chink peasants' revolt
>had little effect on the outside, only served to accelerate the Qing dynasty's already steady decline

>largest military confrontation in the history of the Western Hemisphere
>epic conflict that alongside the Revolutionary War became the titular struggle of American history
>had a monumental geopolitical effect later on as it led to America's rise as an industrial power
>changed the very nature of war itself, serving as the last stand of Napoleonic line battle and the harbinger of the Total War of the 20th Century
>quite literally decided the fate of the world

Really gets that noggin' joggin'

Except China had a far larger population and have a history of slaughtering massive numbers of people in literally any war they have. Also the biggest killer was starvation, not disease or actual fighting (the biggest killers of the Civil War).

The American Civil War also killed over a million people. 620,000 is merely the military dead, not counting civilians or people who died of injuries later on.

Yes, it's weird how contemporary people implied it was American's preference to avoid bayonet charges, completely oblivious to the fact that the technology had evolved.