I find the similarities between these two to be quite fascinating.
>After the death of a tyrant, both were able to gain power and land.
>Both had rivals with whom they shared half their respective world with
>Neither were great generals, but had great men to help them pave their path to victory
>Both laid the foundation of the greatest classical empires
What does Veeky Forums think about these two? How did these two differ?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
pretty sure Liu Bang was a good commander
this. He worked his way up through the military from peasanthood by being a capable commander.
Maybe a better comparison is that both were seen as the underdogs. Xiang Yu and Marc Antony seemed to always have the upper hand against their rivals (Antony controlling the eastern provinces and Egypt; Xiang Yu controlling more populous regions and continuously beating Liu Bang until Gaixia)
bump
>China
>greatest classical empire
WEW LAD HERE COMES ANOTHER NORD KEK
> Chinks could never have created a great classical empire
Nice meme
t. Shian Chingchong
Is this accurate to 117 CE?
Yes, but I do believe he leaves out some details.
That pic proves they couldn't
>Tocharians
fucking rip
Who the fuck is Liu Bang
Founder of the Han dynasty. A peasant who ended up becoming Emperor of China.
> with a last name like "Bang",he's got to be good
His surname is Liu. East Asians place the family name before their given name.
That pic proves nothing about its worth as a classical empire.
en.wikipedia.org
This does.
>This
>At all impressive
>with a first name like "Bang", he's got to be good
Well the question still stands. Even if you think China was not a classical empire at one point, the similarities between the two founders are extremely similar