When Greece meets China...

Say guys, I was wondering for a long time how it would have been when the Indo-Greeks met with the Chinese. Did they, like be hostile with each other or traded peacefully? Did they think of each other as barbarians or strange?

I once read somewhere that the Chinese send an embassy to the Baktrian kingdom, when it had extended to western China and northern India, and they described the Greeks as weak in terms of military. Was it trully like this?

I would be very glad if I could be enlighted by anyone with at least some decent knowledge about this subject, as it is and has always been a most interesting thing for me.

Thank you all in advance!:beam:

http://www.upf.edu/materials/huma/ce...ms/zhangqi.htm

If I recall properly, the reason Zhang Qian regard their military as weak was because:
1- The Yuezhi pwned them and now they're under their dominion.
2- The Chinese style of warfare and armaments are so different from that of the indo greeks.

correct me if I'm wrong =]

I'm immensely grateful to you, Elmetiacos! This was trully great, I hope people can keep information coming in. I'm mostly interested in how the Greeks(Wusun?) saw the Chinese and vice-versa.

I saw somewhere on the site you posted that the Chinese saw the Greeks (Baktrians) as ''people poor in the use of arms and afraid of battle, but clever at commerce''. How would the Greeks describe the Chinese? Where they (Chinese) really that better at use of arms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

I'm immensely grateful to you, Elmetiacos! This was trully great, I hope people can keep information coming in. I'm mostly interested in how the Greeks(Wusun?) saw the Chinese and vice-versa.

I saw somewhere on the site you posted that the Chinese saw the Greeks (Baktrians) as ''people poor in the use of arms and afraid of battle, but clever at commerce''. How would the Greeks describe the Chinese? Where they (Chinese) really that better at use of arms?

---

From my very limited knowledge of Chinese warfare, I am under the impression that the Chinese used a lot of horsemen, chariots,archers and swordsmen. Since they developed these forces cause they suited their geography, my guess is that they would be better in their own country.
The same goes for Greeks.


As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."

:laugh4:

No offense to any Chinese here.

Don't forget "lots of silk" or "steal our money with silk"

wheres Keravanos when you need him?

Quote:

---

As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."



No offense to any Chinese here.

---

Actually, they did have knowledge of them and called them "Seres" or (people of the) silkworms. It wasn't meant as an offense, and I don't think it was ever received as such. To be fair, there wasn't china back then, and Qin was just starting the drive to unite it. This is 272, not 221 when it finally united it.

It has been suggested that the Baktrians had some influence in the chinese especially on the creation on the "terracota army" whose realism hadn't been seen before that time. That is uncertain. What isn't uncertain is the introduction by the IndoGreeks of the coppernickel standard which was first used in China before that. CopperNickel coins is what most people use in coinnage to this day. This suggests at least knowledge of one another.

Greeks were illustrious sea travellers as well. Reaching as far as present day Vietnam. Ptolemy, the Roman geographer of 2nd cent. CE mentions that. Archaeological evidence there confirms that there were greek trades there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oc_Eo

At the time of Ptolemy about 400 ships would make the voyage from Egypt to India and further on. Their crews and captains, were at the overwhelming majority greek even when living under the Romani. Using as a base the greek quarter (emporion or trade post) of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

According to the Mahavamsa, the Great Stupa in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, was dedicated by a 30,000-strong "Yona" delegation from "Alexandria" around 130 BCE.

...

Also the Mahavamsa (Chap. XXIX[11]) records that during Menander's reign, "a Greek ("Yona") Buddhist head monk" named Mahadharmaraksita (literally translated as 'Great Teacher/Preserver of the Dharma') led 30,000 Buddhist monks from "the Greek city of Alexandria" (possibly Alexandria-of-the-Caucasus, around 150km north of today's Kabul in Afghanistan), to Sri Lanka for the dedication of a stupa,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco_Buddhism

---

Unfortunately there is no evidene that shows that they reached mainland china by sea, even if a Chinese sea traveller speaks of people who resemble mediterranean born travellers when he reached present day Sri Lanka.

-edited for a clarification-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vorian

From my very limited knowledge of Chinese warfare, I am under the impression that the Chinese used a lot of horsemen, chariots,archers and swordsmen. Since they developed these forces cause they suited their geography, my guess is that they would be better in their own country.
The same goes for Greeks.


As for how Greeks would describe Chinese? Who knows.

Perhaps like: "Short people with weird characteristics, strange clothing and great great NUMBERS."

:laugh4:

No offense to any Chinese here.

---

Actually at the time of the Western Han dynasty, which largely is evolved upon the Qin model, consists of lots of crossbowmen, archers of both mounted and foot variants and the infantry line is formed up using infantry armed with the 'ge' (works kinda like a halberd). Nearly everybody is armed with a sword as a side arm when the inevitable melee brawl ensues xD. Chariots, at that time were no longer used as a weapon, but more rather a mobile command post of sorts of the commander to read maps and give out orders and etc.

During the expedition against the Xiongnu, the forces Huoqubin led consist of 20,000 mounted infantry, each assigned 2 horses. They were trained to be self sufficient which reduces the need for resupply. Armed with a bow, crossbow, a 'ge' and a straight, single bladed sword, they fight both mounted and dismounted and are a deadly efficient killing machine, as seen how Liling took on 30,000 Xiongnu horsemen with 5000 troops (ok he cheated, he used the supply wagons as cover and used the repeating crossbow).

I wish someday, some historians or scientists will make a simulation of battles on "what if western powers meets China". Especially to see Roman empire vs The Han or Tang dynasty, or Alexander the Great vs Qin Shi Huang or Cao Cao or Zhu Ge Liang. Two totally different warfare, strategy and arms.

That would be ...... I can't describe the feeling.

there was a battle, forgot the name. where roman legions fought chinese mounted crossbows, needless to say the legions got owned by the crossbows. I can't find any detailed info on it, now I even forgot the name of the battle. still remember as it was the only recorded military encounter between romans + chinese. crossbows will wreak havoc on any heavy infantry base army.

I dont' think the Romans engaged with the Chinese.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=37148

that wasn't the battle I was refering to, I read of that battle just recently in EB it self. I just read it on the internet few years back, could very well be made up.

That instance was discussed to quite some length on the EBII forums I think. However, most of the participants were very doubtful as to the truth of the story. However, there is good evidence for the possibility that some Roman soldiers did lose to a Chinese army. Here is what I know of the theory (plus my interpretation).

The Romans were a small (probably only a few hundred or thousand) contigent serving under either the Parthians or Xiongnu (I can't remember which), having been captured as prisoners from Marcus Antonius' expedition against the Parthians in 36 BC. As was customery at the time, the Parthians transferred the captured soldiers to positions on the far side of their empire, similar to Roman policy concerning auxillaries (eg. Sarmations in Britain). These Roman soldiers were then involved in a battle against a Han expeditionary force into central Asia. The Roman soldiers were only a small part of the army that they belonged to, but their exoticness caught the attention of the Chinese officials that oversaw the POWs from the expedition. They were settled in a town on the North-Western frontier in what is today Gansu province (which lies in a narrow mountain corridor between the Tibetan plateu and the Inner Mongolian steppes). Given the location of this village and the status of the settled Romans, they remained virtually untouched by outside events, as well as having few immigrants to that village. So today, the people of this area exhibit particularly western (aka Roman) features, such as eye color, facial features, hair color, foot shape, etc.

This is my interpretation of this theory, and I don't think that it is as impossible as some people have said. I agree that it is not absolute truth, since we don't have a narrative outline of the story. However, there is nothing particularly impossible about it either.

Some of the points that have been brought against this theory:

-the distance was too far for the Romans to have made the trip:

__counteroint: these were tough Roman soldiers, and many of them were themselves stationed far from their original homes in Italy, Gaul, Greece or wherever. Besides, this is entirely consistant with Parthian and Roman policy concerning auxilluries: post them far from where they came from.

-how could the population of this village have remained so pure for over 2000 years:

__many villages in China today remain relatively cut off from the outside world, whether that means all contact or just people immigrating. Part of this is due to a tradition in China of people not moving to different parts of the country very much. This is true today, and very much true back then. Also, this village is in a more remote part of China than is realized, rather than being in China Proper. It's hard to understand from our modern point of view hard rare it was for large changes in lower class demography to happen. And the village itself was very small for awhile so the influx of even a few hundred Romans would be enough to permanently alter the genetic imprint of the area.

Chairman

You know the conclusion of the discussion we had were that if they were indeed westerners they were 10x more likely to be Greeks from about Bactria than Romans.

I searched Chinese forums and some more knowledgable people also said so.

As for the distance, it's already recorded somewhere (forgot whether it was Roman source or Parthian source) that Parthia settled these captured soldiers in a town 500 miles away from the battlefield. The question is not whether or not these men CAN make the trip, but WHY the heck did they bother to leave their town to fight for some XiongNu lord (who isn't even their Parthian overlord). Remember, Parthia already gave these men their post.

I see there is much response to my topic and I must say I'm very grateful for that. I also want to thank Keravnos personally, as I was in some way waiting for his to drop by and share his knowledge about Indo-Greek history. Another thing I want to state is, that by saying China I don't mean any unified state per se just to give a general idea to the people. Also Greece wouldn't be apropriate by the same reason, as there was no central governement so that we can speak of a state instead of just a nation.

Vorian, I see you posted your own idea of the greek point of view about Chinese, so I just wanted to remind you and all those who don't know or miss this detail that ancient Greeks where much shorter than modern people. Much like present-day Chinese I can see, even though that is kind of changing I think.

As for Chinese vs Greek warfare, I suppose the Han empire could easily crush the Indo-Greeks, given they where steamrolled by the Yuezhi. Anyway, I would also find it immensly interesting to see a modern representation of what a battle would be between Rome and China or Makedonia and China.

I also saw someone stated that the Greeks has sailed as far as India and Vietnam... Just want to add my own knowledge, that there is evidence that Greeks had been as far as America, or ''Esperia'' as they called it. Like the greek key pattern found throughout the world. There are various ancient scripts that indicate ancient people at least knew about the country's existense. Anyway, I'm not going to continue this as I would like to stick to the subject.

Keep the info coming lads and please keep it civilised!:beam:

I usually frown upon these kind of threads; Statements such as "Seres/Thys is superior" or "Han-dynasty could easily crush Daxia", is originated from Chinese annals denoting both Parthian and Bactrian arms as "weak" using the Chinese military axioms as point of reference; Zhang Qian mentions a plethora of countries in his voyages,amongst these Dayuan (Ferghana), Kangju (Soghdia), Yancai/Alanliao (Alans), Daxia (Bactria), Anxi (Parthia), Lixuan (Hyrcania) and Tiaozhi (Mesopotamia), but the manner of application would have them separated as distinct countries, which is a very tricky assessment: Perhaps Zhang Qian intended to emphasize the feudal societal structure of the Parthian empire, but surprisingly he foregoes the mention of the Posse (Persians) and a number of other client states, which on the other hand implies that Zhang Qian misunderstood the nature of the Parthian empire as a de facto confederacy.

Because Parthian arms relied on the provisions of the nobility, and especially amongst the High Clans, which after the first Parthian civil war, almost gladly jumped at each others' throats, it may have been "weak" in that manner, that it was loosely tied to the allegiance of royalty. Otherwise, the Parthian empire, as a whole fielded highly trained light horse, and archers, and with a distinct champion culture, they had re-founded Iranian chivalry; This certainly intrigued the Chinese, especially during the Age of Fragmentation, Sui dynasty and at the flower of Chinese chivalry, the Tang dynasty, where the formation of extra-heavy cavalry became more common due to previous Iranian but also upcoming Turkic military influences (In which the Tarkhan champion culture draws heavily upon Partho-Sassanian chivalry, especially during Gök/Heavenly Turk migrations); Tang dynasty cavalry would take form into a very unique equestrian tradition that blossomed during the Song era.

So therefore, I'd take Zhang Qian's report with a pillar of salt. The Iranian empires under the Arsacid-Sassanian dynasties dealt with the Indo-Scythian and Yuezhi (Gondopharid expeditions), and the Sassanians under Shâpûr I destroyed the Kushans (Imposing in their stead the Kûshânshâh rule), and later the Xîyûn (Red huns/Chionites), and later the Hûnâ (White Huns/Hephtalites) under the patronage of Chosroës I "The Just", and twice gave the Gök-Turks the spanking of their lives under the campaigns of Varahrân IV Chûbîn (Lit. The Wooden Stick) and the Perso-Armenian general Smbat of the Bagratids. All the while they were flanked by marauding Arabian nomads to the south, the Romans to the west and with Scytho-Sarmatians and later Hunnic tribes to the north. If Chinese sources ascribes "weakness" on such grounds, only to be blindly accepted then quite frankly China-fanboys have the uncanny ability of taking a walk on my patience. That Mithradates I The Philhellene managed with sheer ability to tackle both the Seleucids and the Graeco-Bactrians simultaneously, with success if I may add that, is nothing to scoff at; Equally the unfortunate Eucratides I managed to stretch his empire as far west as Tapuria (Hyrcania).

That the Chinese managed to drive out the Xiongnu or the Yuezhi is not absolute proof of superior Chinese military arts; In fact, China never permanently got rid of the problem with marauding nomads, something which has been attested by the "annoying immortality" of the Partho-Sassanid eastern rival. Darius I The Great of the Achaemenids too tried to drive out the Scythians: He was successful against the Tîgrakhauda, and the Haomâvargâ, and took success for granted against the Parâdrayâ in the west. History proves to us that chasing nomads in the pursuit of getting rid of the threat, is a lesson of futility. China is far from the exception with the various periods of heavily Turkic-influenced rule.

On the issue of Sino-Greek relations, it is also inherently relevant to Sino-Iranian relations; As Keravnos mentioned, the Greek connections with the Chinese, from two ends, the Ferghana, near the Tarim, and the Champa-ports in today's Vietnam, and subsequent Kamboja migrations eastwards from India (Posited that they finally ended up in what today is called Cambodia) and mainly pertained to mercantile enterprise, something that the Greeks had inherited from the previous Achaemenid infrastructure; Upon the Parthian succession in Iran proper, these commercial ties would be not only be tightened by the formal declaring of the Silk Road (It had existed previously, so this was only a contract or a treaty of trade), as a pact between Mithradates II The Great and Wu Di of the Han. Later however the sea-trade would drastically improve once the Parthians invested in improving the ports around the Persian Gulf; The Aspasine clients in Charax would go on to make Charax one of the greatest port cities East of the Mediterranean. This later forced the Parthians to build the foundations for Sirap, another port city in the southern shores of Persis proper in order to increase the "trade bandwidth", and these were maintained by the Vâzarangîg clients of Persis proper.

From here we observe Arsacid currency as far as Vietnam and Zanzibar in Africa, where the former had taken the traditional routes to the ports in India (Barbarikon - Barygaza) and circumnavigate the area as far as the mouth of the Ganges; The latter had made use of Arabia and taken a route along the horn of Africa. An interesting tidbit is that while the Parthian colonization of certain places in coastal Africa appears unique, the route was known since the days of Sataspes when he was ordered by Xerxes to circumnavigate Libya (A task which he ultimately failed to achieve; By the simple fact that there was much, much more to Africa than what initially met the eye :grin:). In fact, later Greek and Iranian expeditions past the Alexandrian age owes heavily to the expeditions of Scylax of Caryanda and Sataspes, employed by Darius I The Great and Xerxes I. While the expeditions to the Champa in Vietnam appears a bedazzling feat, it was in fact quite common. This was the so-called maritime Spice Route, which complemented the land-route of the Silk Road, and the land-based Frankincense Route and its later maritime incarnation in Arabia.

wow, awesome read, didn't know any dynasties in china were heavily influence by turkish culture before this. if the info can be found on the net, any chance you could link them? I always love a good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

Vorian, I see you posted your own idea of the greek point of view about Chinese, so I just wanted to remind you and all those who don't know or miss this detail that ancient Greeks where much shorter than modern people. Much like present-day Chinese I can see, even though that is kind of changing I think.

---

I was being comical of course. This is more like a modern Greek stereotype about the Chinese....in comedies and such

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craziii

wow, awesome read, didn't know any dynasties in china were heavily influence by turkish culture before this. if the info can be found on the net, any chance you could link them? I always love a good read.

---

Actually, just searching actively on Google and Wikipedia will reveal most of what I have brought up as commonplace knowledge; Jin, Sui and Tang dynasties were all very influenced by the Turkic equestrian culture, and in particular the northern Wei dynasty during the Age of Fragmentation saw the rise of the Xianbei-originated Tuoba nomads, who claimed themselves to be "Yuan". In all reality, they were one of many, many Turco-Altaic confederacies at the time. In fact by this time, when we apply the words "Hunnic" or "Turkic" we are actually using the words in the same sweeping manner as we'd otherwise say "Scythian". It's a broad frame of reference.

As for other sources, unfortunately most of this is derived from various forms of archaeology, including numismatics; Coinage of Partho-Sassanian origins have been found near Kilwa, near Zanzibar, if memory serves me right, four Arsacid coins (Most likely that of Mithradates II The Great; In fact so popular that it was "boot-legged" by Ardashir I about three centuries later) and one Sassanian coin, which may have been a sign of anti-Vâzarangîg (Bazrangid) enterprise during the rule of Sassanian King of Kings Shâpûr I. These findings are however much more abundant in the Champa jurisdiction where even fragments of Pahlavî writings have been encountered, along with Sassanian-style pottery; More support was encountered outside of the historical site of Sirap (Today's Siraf) where a rather sophisticated merchant's vessel was found along with unique pottery. The ship was of Parthian origins, and was found to have two rigs, probably as a means of harnessing the monsoon winds. In the Tarim proper, near Turpan (Turfan) we have however an enormous treasure, the Shâpûrgân, an almost intact Manichaean writing containing Parthian Pahlavî. These are all indications of strong Sino-Iranian relations.

I thought fenriswolf peaked his head in here TPC.


Cause if he did, I'd be calling for a lynch mob.

That was great, Persian Cataphract! Thank you very much for your exensive information bout the ties between those people.

And Vorian, I understand what you said was meant to be humouristic! Trully, the Greek view of the Chinese is exactlty a short, yellow man with a wierd moustache, a conical hat and closed, split eyes... Wonder what the Chinese think of us? Hairy, oval-eyed, yelling, tanned monkeys?:laugh4:

Surely not. =]

But, as Alexander himself has said, "everybody is a barbarian to someone" I'm not surprised to be thought of as such. But I'm quite sure I don't have a moustache. =]

Seems to me it's a matter of taking your pick from Chinese, Greek or Persian nationalist versions. Of course, any Celts would have beaten the lot of them...
:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I usually frown upon these kind of threads; Statements such as "Seres/Thys is superior" or "Han-dynasty could easily crush Daxia", is originated from Chinese annals denoting both Parthian and Bactrian arms as "weak" using the Chinese military axioms as point of reference.

---

Indeed. Although, to be honest, I very much doubt that the phalanx would have any result other than the middle lands and the Southern Lands. Since those were basically the lands were the ground was mostly plain. Otherwise, in the North, West or Southwest, the ground was unlevel in many parts thus difficult for a phalanx to operate. As for Parthia, I'm not really sure whether they could stage a successful hypothetical invasion of China.

It is of utmost importance to understand the problems that contemporary logistics carried with themselves, and more importantly to make the hypothesis plausible. Simply saying "Let's say Parthia invades China..." is by itself a gross trivialization of the supposed state of affairs. You confirm this yourself, by saying that it is unlikely. History is usually harsh against these prospects, but there have been exceptions, notably the conquests of Cyrus The Great and Alexander The Great. They did the unthinkable, but not because they had a simple plan in mind, but because they thought outside of the box and did something completely unexpected. Unfortunately not everyone has grasped this very fundament of warfare. It is also given that both left enough room for fortune to decide the matter, and it has been to their benefit (Well, maybe except for Cyrus... His head ended up in a leather bag)

It is interesting that Russia Almighty mentions a certain character, Fenris (I frequent the GameFAQs History boards at occasion under a different alias), whom has built a reputation of being of Sinophile, glorifying all that is China, under a jingoistic veneer. On one famous occasion he posited a Roman invasion of China, decided on two "major routes" which he called a northern passage through the Silk Road, the steppes and the Tarim basin, and the southern passage through India, and he had reasoned that when the Chinese would offer the Romans their battle, the Chinese would emerge victorious. He was laughed at, scrutinized, and scorned for being a complete simpleton when it came to military affairs, and many were baffled that this Fenris had posited that after a completely exhausted Roman army would finally get their battle outside of Luoyang, or Chang'an or whatever, he just merely hands over victory on behalf of the Han troops. Why would the Romans torture themselves with such a campaign? It didn't make sense for them to march all that way, supposedly without the Parthians doing anything, or the Indo-Scythians/Kushans leaving them unmolested, not foregoing the mention of marauding Xiongnu and Wusun... It was ridiculous. It didn't make sense, and the scenario itself was of such unlikely nature that it came to scourge Fenris for a considerable amount of time.

Counter-factual theory and discussion in all glory, but sometimes we must dig deep in order to find the border of rationality and reason. We are expected to be reasonable in any attempted estimation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

And Vorian, I understand what you said was meant to be humouristic! Trully, the Greek view of the Chinese is exactlty a short, yellow man with a wierd moustache, a conical hat and closed, split eyes... Wonder what the Chinese think of us? Hairy, oval-eyed, yelling, tanned monkeys?:laugh4:

---

Well, being a Chinese, I'll venture to say we think of you as red-haired. All of you, in fact. White skinned, red-haired, gibberish-yabbering baboons. :D

So much did the Chinese think of Westerners in those days, at least, that the colloquial term for Caucasians in general, 'hongmao', means 'red hair', and in the Hokkien dialect in Singapore, we still refer to Caucasians (when we know/think they don't understand us) as 'angmoh' which is the same thing.

Though in Singapore at least, 'angmoh' has lost a lot of its old negative connotation. That's not to say it's still not negative. 'To be angmoh-fied' is the equivalent of turning Turk. The Chinese call a Westerner-wannabe Chinese a 'banana', yellow outside, white inside. The Malays call their wannabes 'kentang', or 'potato', for equally obvious reasons. :D

Okay this was out of topic, but I thought I'd take Maion up on this. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Well, being a Chinese, I'll venture to say we think of you as red-haired. All of you, in fact. White skinned, red-haired, gibberish-yabbering baboons. :D

So much did the Chinese think of Westerners in those days, at least, that the colloquial term for Caucasians in general, 'hongmao', means 'red hair', and in the Hokkien dialect in Singapore, we still refer to Caucasians (when we know/think they don't understand us) as 'angmoh' which is the same thing.

Though in Singapore at least, 'angmoh' has lost a lot of its old negative connotation. That's not to say it's still not negative. 'To be angmoh-fied' is the equivalent of turning Turk. The Chinese call a Westerner-wannabe Chinese a 'banana', yellow outside, white inside. The Malays call their wannabes 'kentang', or 'potato', for equally obvious reasons. :D

Okay this was out of topic, but I thought I'd take Maion up on this. :D

---

Funny to know actually, but the thing is I'm Greek and there is no red-haired Greek... Anyway, I was talking about how Chinese would think about Greeks in particular, but just forget that:beam:

All ancient peoples from the Egyptians to the Romans to the Chinese seem to have shared a stigma against red haired people. Curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

Funny to know actually, but the thing is I'm Greek and there is no red-haired Greek... Anyway, I was talking about how Chinese would think about Greeks in particular, but just forget that:beam:

---

May be he meant Chinese back those days think of all westerners are red haired, because they never met the Greeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

All ancient peoples from the Egyptians to the Romans to the Chinese seem to have shared a stigma against red haired people. Curious.

---

And it is said that Judas Iscariot was red-haired, so imagine what we the Catholics have thought about the red-haired during the "Dark" Ages.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And better we don't speak about what the western men have thought about the "yellow fellows" during centuries.
The xenophobia is one of the few things that humanity share all around the world.

Sulla and Pyrrhus were both red heads as well ~:)

Plus red haired women are all evil witches, and b****** of course, what has been proven for centuries on the stakes throughout Europe.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Plus red haired women are all evil witches, and b****** of course, what has been proven for centuries on the stakes throughout Europe.:laugh4:

---

Considering red heads tend to be hot, it was the brown haired females arranging the executions.

Ok, first of all chenkai, the whole purpose of this topic is to share knowledge about these two cultures (Greeks and Chinese) and some have even posted some sites which contain valuable information saying the DID know of each other's existence... The Chinese even send embassies to Daxia (Baktria), so please read better before you post.

As for Power2the1, where the heck in history is it stated that Pyrrhos was red-haired? Never heard of this before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

Ok, first of all chenkai, the whole purpose of this topic is to share knowledge about these two cultures (Greeks and Chinese) and some have even posted some sites which contain valuable information saying the DID know of each other's existence... The Chinese even send embassies to Daxia (Baktria), so please read better before you post.

---

Oh, sorry, I will try to read carefully next time.

The thing is Baktria is not Greece. Well, may be I am wrong. Sorry.

No, it's not but it was populated by Greeks and for the most part they made up the nobilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

No, it's not but it was populated by Greeks and for the most part they made up the nobilty.

---

I knew that. But may be you also know that......never mind, it's pointless. Back to topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Plus red haired women are all evil witches, and b****** of course, what has been proven for centuries on the stakes throughout Europe.:laugh4:

---

Whats that supposed to mean :shame:

Please, could you just remain on-topic? We're changing to people's thought about red-haired people now and that has certainly nothing to do with the topic...

My two cents on topic:

At the very least, when they started out, Chinese and Baktrian merchants probably didn't go for each others' throats. The main aim of merchants, I think, would be profit, so they would hardly cut off their source of exotic income.

well, from what I've learnt, neither side had the interest to go to war... considering the trade amongst them being so lucrative...

Apart from the fact that waging war against each other would be rather impossible...