In the wake of the collapse of the Qin Dynasty, could the emergent 18 kingdoms have endured absent the phenomenal success of Gaozu, or was resorting into a new pan-chines state very likely after an initial unstable period? Could China have essentially returned to the old pattern of warring states, or had Qin made that level of authority obsolete for the near future?
Well it didn’t happen during the spring and autumn periods, or earlier in the warring states period. There seems to have been a discontinuity at some point, was the qin collapse after that point?In short term yes, in long term some unification is not doubt going to happen due to geography.
Well it didn’t happen during the spring and autumn periods, or earlier in the warring states period. There seems to have been a discontinuity at some point, was the qin collapse after that point?
Interesting theory.I believe advancing tech allows for political unification of areas that in previous time was not possible. So long as a state manages to control the north China plain it's only a matter of time before the other states have to fold. But preventing a unification of the north China plain will be increasingly difficult as tech advances. It's going to need external factors coming into play but China is isolated so this won't happen.
I believe advancing tech allows for political unification of areas that in previous time was not possible. So long as a state manages to control the north China plain it's only a matter of time before the other states have to fold. But preventing a unification of the north China plain will be increasingly difficult as tech advances. It's going to need external factors coming into play but China is isolated so this won't happen.
In short term yes, in long term some unification is not doubt going to happen due to geography.
Why can't we just have horsemen such as the Mongol show up during the disorder and break the back of the technology and cities for a few decades. Enough for the old patterns to resume.
Also, your argument sound persuasive until we consider other areas. Why is this "tech allows for unification, ergo, always reform" not apply to the Med Sea basin?
Well its possible but chances are the Mongols would be assimilated eventually due to the sheer disparity in numbers and so we would need continuous nomads to turn up and attack only the strong states with the potential to unify the area, but not the weak states... Doesn't add up.
Rome did unify (first the Italian peninsula, then the Mediterranean), it's just other factors, mainly geographical was against it staying unified. China doesn't really have these working against them so you need more ASB for a lasting Rome compared to a lasting China.
Sea is more natural unification area than two river basins. Much easier.
Rome lasted longer and was same size as Qin, so it would make more sense for Rome to Romanize the Huns/Germans/Arabs than for Han to Hanize Mongols/others.
in long term some unification is not doubt going to happen due to geography
Sea is more natural unification area than two river basins. Much easier.
And what you said about Mongols can be said about Huns or Germans, but we know it was not true with Huns or Germans. Rome lasted longer and was same size as Qin, so it would make more sense for Rome to Romanize the Huns/Germans/Arabs than for Han to Hanize Mongols/others.
Well, Han ethnicity obviously did not exist as such before the Han dynasty. Arguably, China was quite ethnically diverse (at least, more so than it would be later) before the Qin. Yes, obvisouly there were cultural unifying features (characters!), a pre-existing Imperial idea harking back to at least the Shang dynasty, and many spoken languages must have been related (we don't know, since the writing system largely obscures that and the later diffusion of Middle Chinese over the entire area would have erased a plausible earlier diversity). But this could be said to be case in a large portion pre-Roman Europe/Med region as well: many related languages, similar if not identical writing systems (all derived from a single source), a lot of commercial and cultural interconnection and aspects of religion and material cultures in common. There were differences, of course, some of which very marked (also, alphabetic writing systems make these more visible to us in language and writing) and there was also less ideological impetus for unification.Absolutely not, the Chinese dynasties from the earliest years had a far higher percentage of "Han" peoples than the Romans did. Basically Qin, Han, ect started off with a large Han ethnic populations already, whereas Rome had to build their own ethnic identity from a massive stew of different peoples and dynamics. Totally different, and it makes it harder to assimilate newcomers if your empire is super diverse already.
My opinion is that the emphasis should not be on tech per se, but on relative levels of tech. Rome could dominate all of Europe from Italy because the had such a tech and power disparity that no one else in Europe could challenge them, but the very process of empire spread that tech and development to the barbarians, and an empire didn't reemerge because the power/tech gradient was too even to allow for complete dominance again.Why can't we just have horsemen such as the Mongol show up during the disorder and break the back of the technology and cities for a few decades. Enough for the old patterns to resume.
Also, your argument sound persuasive until we consider other areas. Why is this "tech allows for unification, ergo, always reform" not apply to the Med Sea basin?