149 replies to this topic

[mariusj]

Power is not an absolute, but a relative thing: You are only as powerful as the counter-pressure of your neighbours and rival allow you to be, hence the most objective criteria of a powerful polity is the power of your rivals and how you fare against it.

That's silly isn't it? For U.S's case, Canada and Mexico can only put up so much pressure, yet does it imply anything of the power of U.S?

Military: In this respect, I wouldn't place any Chinese dynasty even among the top twenty: for almost the larger part of the 2nd millennium AD, China was partly or fully occupied by foreign powers. And India, the other giant with feet of clay, was almost habitually overrun from Muslim intruders from its north-west.

It appears we have a different opinion of what is "China." Since majority of these 'foreign powers' do address themselves as 'China.' If you want to say culturally Han dynasty I would agree to some points.
Anyhow. Han dynasty under Han WuDi in the years of his expansion was basically unstoppable. During Tang XuanZhong's time, his force was also incredible powerful. During Zhu Di's time, I also don't see a rival.
On the other hand, if you are saying Chinese DYNASTY, then I fail to see ANY country been top [wait, isn't that contradictory?] given it must first rise, then fall, the mathematical laws DEMANDS it must cross the 0 threshold, thus, this point of Chinese dynasty is very very silly.
Did the British Empire remain most powerful throughout its history? No.
Did the Roman Empire? No.
Did any Empire? No.

Economy: In terms of wealth, both had a GDP per capita not more than average in Asia, and below the European one most of the time.

I want source.
Aside from current figures of GDP / capita, how in the name of heaven did you get GDP figures from Europeans? Now China do have a fair complete collection of census, income, grain/wheat prices, [w/out rubbishing your claim its less then European] but a comparison DEMANDS you provide the other set, now I would like to see the European average, please.
Also, if we are talking about the relative well being of the people, then perhaps GDP/Capita MIGHT be a key indicator. [Again, Cost of Living is FAR MORE important then GDP in well being, since it really is a show off piece of figures that have no meanings to average people.] but if we are talking about actual power, how is aggregate of economy NOT important? I would say its the most important thing.
Do you consider the average strength of an army? Or do you consider the aggregate strength of an army?

Perhaps the Spartans were stronger on average, but what does it mean if there are 2 Spartans and a gazillion Persians? [Unless, of course, the Expectation of both are the same.]

Cultural appeal: While Buddhism was a world force, Confucian culture was unconvincing in that only people of lesser cultural standing adopted it.

Wow. Just wow.
Normally I would just ignore something idiotic like this, but given a nation whose core value was Confucian, was able to survive through, your words, occupation by foreign powers over a great amount of time yet retain its cultural identity, while all those other culture which you shower your praise on [that is non-Confucian culture] all fall apart and hardly retain its identity, I find it extremely difficult to take most, if any of your statement seriously. At the same time, we also take note that Confucian teachings does not, unlike all other religion, give hope of salvation in the afterlife for good and eternal punishment in the afterlife for evil, and still millions follow its moral code, w/out the fear of divine reward/retribution, is something I would call, pretty darn good.

[mariusj]

Take a historical world map of high cultures and Western Eurasia is where the dots are clustered while there is only one blinking the Far East.

From a Western view of points, yes.

What enemies did China have? Actually, it profited from a uniquely favourable geostrategical position which made it unassailable from three sides: In the south, its opponents were mostly only hill tribes barely into the bronze and iron age, in the west it was protected by the almost uninhabited Himalaya plateau of Tibet, and in the east for millennia no naval threat was produced at all by the Pacific rim islands which could have hurt China's soft maritime underbelly.

You are making it sound like empires crumble all from external invasion.
Its not really a RTS game where you only have to worry about how defensible your empire is.

Leaves the north where the only enemies of note, the nomads were traditionally outnumbered by 50 to 100 to 1 by the Chinese; still they were their equals on the battlefields until the mid-18th century and even made China the last sedentary empire to be overrun from horseback.

I like your math. So an entire nomad tribe can turn into an army, while the Chinese are all spread out.
And no, China was not overrun by the Manchus, but a combination of both Han Chinese and Manchus, and they are not serving, at that time, the same master.

All what China needed to do was to concentrate its ressources on the northern frontier, and while it projected at times its power very far into Central Asia, it remained telling a naval pygmy which did not even manage to jump the Taiwan straits for the longest time.

Which OCEAN did any European cross before Ming sent its fleet into the OCEAN?
And, I believe during late Han dynasty, there are people sailing to Taiwan already. So there.

The inescapable conclusion is that China was the one-eyed king among the blind, shielded from the most potent Eurasian military powers by its uniquely isolated geography, and never forced to face a two, let alone multiple front problem like all other empires (save the other perenneial military underperformer, India) had to.

Before I fault you for, well, most of these statements.
Have you ever think on your logic, that China by nature will be weaker by Eurasian, who by nature are stronger?

By your own logic, it would be that these Eurasian nations are strong b/c of their environment, and that China is weak b/c of its environment. Yet you come back and say will if not for China's environment, it would be overrun.
Why? B/c China was weak, why? B/c China's environment.

Did you see how silly your logic is?

Aside from the time necessary to adapt, once necessity draws in, you either adapt, or die. As is for any species, as for any nations.

And so far, it appears China have adapt.

[mohistManiac]

A rather unappetizing metaphor, but allow me to follow it up because you touched exactly one of my points: The nomadic invaders, your "incoming nutrition", who became over the centuries rather more than less successful in penetrating and occupying Chinese territory, could be comparatively easily assimilated by the Han culture because
1. they were hopelessly inferior in number (ultimately due to the constraints of their habitat, the steppe)
2. once they entered as conquerors the agricultural Chinese lands, they had to change their lifestyle from nomadic to sedentary modes of living. And there was no model but the Chinese.
3. they generally did not worship a different religion which would have set them permanently apart as a distinct ethnicity from the Confucian-Buddhist mainstream

These three reasons meant that even when the nomads won the war, they were bound to lose the peace since they were forced to assimilate into the sea of Han Chinese. This is what distinguishes China from the Indian experience where each successful invader left a permanent cultural and religious legacy in the country increasing cumulatively its disunity and hampering imperial attempts at reunification.

Buddhism came at a time when there were already different sorts of religious undergoings in China and this points to something which basically only the east had. What stood China and few others apart from the west was that it didn't trouble itself to compete existing ideologies against one another but rather its thinkers and writers tapped into a wide range of material or subject matter and used the device of syncretism to tie differing opinions all together in a compromising fashion. The Hundred Schools of Thought was just such an undertaking where there were probably hundreds of schools of thought but most of them soon just came together under the umbrella development of the select few that survived namely Daoism, Confucianism, Mohism, and Legalism. This is why China is full of culture and steeped in mysticism because all religions were welcome to guide and be guided in their process for more enlightenment. The west never adopted this kind of mechanism preferring instead to remain hopelessly polarized between Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants with no real sense of ancestry and always splitting hairs over something menial. The western forces stay apart until some truly dangerous outsider force propels certain groups to come together in steadfast fashion thereby fragmenting in its course of development into newly founded belligerents. In China however, any foreign invasion big or small in number (the nutrition) historically set themselves up for future assimilation because of their complacency due to being accommodated in the most natural sorts of ways by the historically ancient Chinese masses. When the new settlers finish their patterns of migration they would have already been the participants of Chinese syncretism by virtue of their huge wholesale and uninterrupted immigration into China. Ancestral worship, shamanistic totemic religions, Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam etc were all contemporary when at last Christianity arrived at a time of China's weakest after being subjected to the war reparations of the Opium War. One may easily characterize this chapter to be the most hectic in China purely in terms of cultural identity or mentality as evidenced by that one Hakka proponent of the new religion simply because he couldn't pass some Confucian scholar examination. Usually religious squabble caused significant deaths in China like that of the Taiping rebellion and the Yellow Turban rebellion and these were relatively speaking wars for resources of survival that pressed their fighters to unite under some mysticism that set itself apart from all others just so that it could engage against the powers that be. Most often though China never had a real problem in uniting the people once military power and prestige got underway to pacifying the public about who was really in charge. Religion as a unifying principle in China was subsumed under the unity of the people under a syncretic principle enforced by the domineering authority of the time.

[sindeee]

The discussions above is precisely why I used hard quantifiable evidence, such as population figures, total GDP output, and military spending budgets, all of which are hard objective data that are free from subjective interpretations, which all too often are the subject of biased interpretation like the ones made by some members here. By this standard most Chinese dynasties certainly rank more or less among the top and several of them even rivalled or surpassed the status of America today. I don't pretend that this is decisive, but data on GDP, population, and military spending liberates us from relying on unsubstantiated interpretations and saves us from meaningless quibbling. In addition, its also what modern international relation experts use as a gauge of power. Its the only objective criteria which we have, the rest of the comments made here such as the relationship China had with its neighbours and the even less important and abstract cultural appeal, are really unverifiable opinions that can go both ways.

Edited by sindeee, 23 September 2010 - 01:22 AM.

[south]

Why is this Tibet Libre still making ignorant posts like this? Even the most stubborn and hardheaded people knows a limit to shame. How many times have people pointed out to him that China is not at all the only sedentary state in East Asia and is surrounded by large populous sedentary states such as the kingdoms of Chu, Ba, Shu, Chosun, NanZhao, Dali, Nan Yue, Min Yue, Koguryo, Paekche, Silla, Japan, Annam, Bohai/Parhae, Tibetan Empire, Burma, Champa, Gaochang, Loulan, and literally dozens more in both East and Central Asia? In addition to that, why is he refusing to accept the fact that the Mongolian nomads which China faced were the largest and most powerful nomadic organization in the world, with the most horse supply, largest pasture ground, and the most people and had constantly shown to be able to compete or overwhelm any major civiliation from Persia, India, to Russia? How in any way, is China in a militarily unchallenged environment? The argument Tibet Libre makes is just that China had no neighbour of high civilization, buts thats already pointed out to be false by many members here when they brought up all of these large sedentary kingdoms which he just ignored. His other argument is that the nomads are weak, which is just ridiculous considering how the largest empires in history such as the Xiongnu, Gokturk and Mongol Empires were made by these nomads.

[Tibet Libre]

The discussions above is precisely why I used hard quantifiable evidence, such as population figures, total GDP output, and military spending budgets, all of which are hard objective data that are free from subjective interpretations, which all too often are the subject of biased interpretation like the ones made by some members here.

Nothing of the above is hard quantifiable data, since the ancients did not leave any such data behind, forcing modern historians to bridge the huge gaps in our understanding by making bold and crude estimations. Nearly all the data on ancient societies rests on very flimsy evidence and estimations vary routinely by several hundred percent.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 23 September 2010 - 07:38 AM.

[Tibet Libre]

double post

Edited by Tibet Libre, 23 September 2010 - 07:31 AM.

[Tibet Libre]

That's silly isn't it? For U.S's case, Canada and Mexico can only put up so much pressure, yet does it imply anything of the power of U.S?

Can't compare. We are living in a globalized world of intercontinental flights and missiles where the US and also other powers project their power globally and we have become all neighbours through TV, telephone and internet. The rest of your argument I find equally implausible.

[Tibet Libre]

His other argument is that the nomads are weak, which is just ridiculous considering how the largest empires in history such as the Xiongnu, Gokturk and Mongol Empires were made by these nomads.

Large in what respect? What these empires controlled were seas of blades of grass and little more. The largest nomadic empire in Europe, the Huns, had exactly one structure from masonry built, Attila's sauna, which, although probably still one more than the Xiongnu and Gokturk had, is literally nothing compared to the number of Roman or Chinese dwellings.

Nomads had traditionally no cities, no fortifications, no navy, no bureaucracy, no mining, little metallurgy and technology and, above all, very little internal cohesion which made them crack under pressure. Their power was mainly destructive and since they were forced to assimilate into China for lack of competing models for sedentary life, they were bound to lose even when they won the war.

[Tibet Libre]

...the kingdoms of Chu, Ba, Shu, Chosun, NanZhao, Dali, Nan Yue, Min Yue, Koguryo, Paekche, Silla, Japan, Annam, Bohai/Parhae, Tibetan Empire, Burma, Champa, Gaochang, Loulan...

Yes, states, small states, but not empires. Some of them remained primitive affairs (like Nan Yue and Min Yue), some were very sparsely populated (like Tibet), some were maritime underperformers (like pre-modern Japan), some of them suffered from a high disease gradient disruptive to state building (like all SE Asian states), and all were unable to produce a high culture which stood on its own feet (save Burma and much later Japan).

If you want a fair measure of how ancient China fared against real military powers, don't look further than Talas where the Arabs wiped the floor with the Tang's best general, or the Seven Years War where the Ming just so hung on against the Samurai thanks to the spirited defense of their Korean allies.

[sindeee]

Nothing of the above is hard quantifiable data, since the ancients did not leave any such data behind, forcing modern historians to bridge the huge gaps in our understanding by making bold and crude estimations. Nearly all the data on ancient societies rests on very flimsy evidence and estimations vary routinely by several hundred percent.

Actually no. The ancients left plenty of census registrations and accounts of military spending in many civilizations, and in the past 500 years, we can further support that through backward projections to a fairly close degree of accuracy. While imperfect, they are far from "very flimsy" and a general picture can be constructed for the past mellenium. Its true that the figure for states before the last mellenium is much more shady, and thats more true the further back we go, but we are certainly not completely in the dark, for census and demographic archeology do exist and they allow us to construct a margin of estimation which could attain a certain degree of reliability. While we cannot determine absolutely which large empire had greater status, there is little question that when comparing all of united China to individual fragmented European, Middle Eastern, and Indian states, which is often the case for the past 2 and a half mellenium, China dwarfed most of these states.

[south]

Large in what respect? What these empires controlled were seas of blades of grass and little more. The largest nomadic empire in Europe, the Huns, had exactly one structure from masonry built, Attila's sauna, which, although probably still one more than the Xiongnu and Gokturk had, is literally nothing compared to the number of Roman or Chinese dwellings.

Nomads had traditionally no cities, no fortifications, no navy, no bureaucracy, no mining, little metallurgy and technology and, above all, very little internal cohesion which made them crack under pressure. Their power was mainly destructive and since they were forced to assimilate into China for lack of competing models for sedentary life, they were bound to lose even when they won the war.

It was large in the sense that it stretched from Korea all the way to the edge of the Byzantine Empire, and dominated the entire steppe region from Mongolia to the Caucus. Your argument is problematic in two points. To begin with, while controlling the steppe is not strategic for a sedentary state, it is the basis of living for any nomadic empire. In addition, according to the well known steppe historian Sinor, the steppe is also the home to around half of the world's horses, which is by far the most important animal in war. The Gokturk Empire of the 8th century unified all of the Eurasia's major steppes, such an accomplishment is in many ways even more impressive than the unification of sedentary Empires such as that of China, Rome or Persia. To claim that this empire is insigificant and weak is not only sedentary centric, it goes against history; Persia, Byzantine and all states of Central Asia very much respected Turkish power. If you examined some of the Byzantine sources, you'll see how the Turks were a major political power and potential ally to the Byzantine against the Persians; there is nothing but respect and awe in Byzantine accounts on the power of the Turks. The Gokturks defeated the Persians in battle, annihilated the white huns and controlled all of Central Asia, which is certainly not "seas of blades of grass". Refusing to accept that an empire of such a size is anything but a first class power because it doesn't fit the model of power you've constructed is simply blatant denial.


To be able to conquer most of this Empire, the Tang was certainly a world class power on the scale of the Mongols in the 13th century.

Yes, states, small states, but not empires. Some of them remained primitive affairs (like Nan Yue and Min Yue), some were very sparsely populated (like Tibet), some were maritime underperformers (like pre-modern Japan), some of them suffered from a high disease gradient disruptive to state building (like all SE Asian states), and all were unable to produce a high culture which stood on its own feet (save Burma and much later Japan).

You are wrong. These states were certainly empires. Nan Yue was an empire, it was originally only restricted to a few counties but expanded south to include modern Vietnam, and had multiple ethnic groups. It was far from primitive, since it had a full fledged bureaucracy like China, and was better organized than any of the Germanic people Rome had to face. Tibet was not only an empire, it was one of the most powerful in the world in the 8th and 9th century and fought the Arabs to a standstill in central asia, invaded India in the South, conquered Central Asia in the north, yet they were pounded on all sides by the Tang in the 8th century. Nan Zhao was a powerful empire which conquered Burma, made encroachments into both Tibet and China, and southward into many southeast Asian states. According to Fitzgerald, the Korean states of Koguryo, Silla, and Paekche were more advanced than any European states at the time, and had more people than most, yet they were only on the defensive against the Tang army and two of the three were ultimately destroyed and occupied by the Chinese. So you're argument for inferior sedentary states surrounding China just doesn't hold.

If you want a fair measure of how ancient China fared against real military powers, don't look further than Talas where the Arabs wiped the floor with the Tang's best general, or the Seven Years War where the Ming just so hung on against the Samurai thanks to the spirited defense of their Korean allies.

I believe this has been refuted to death as well. If you want to look at a skirmish like Talas, why not look at the battle of thirst in 723 where the Turks routed the Muslims and drove them out of central asia(The turks were defeated by the Tang several years before for your information) or the battle of the late 6th century where the western turks routed the Persians?

As for the seven years war of the Ming, you really need to read this forum a bit more, the information has already been done to death, the Ming only sent 50000 soldiers or around 1/40 of its military establishment, while the Japanese sent 160000 or around 1/2 of their entire standing army but the Chinese still won. Also according to Samuel Hawley's book on Imjin War, imperial Japan probably had the most powerful army in the world in the late 16th century because of its quality and size. While that is debatable, it was certainly more than a match than any army in Europe.

Edited by south, 23 September 2010 - 09:42 AM.

[Tibet Libre]

Actually no.

Actually yes. The only halfway reliable data from China are the population censuses, but even here complete and uncorrupted have survived only every several hundred years or so until the 2nd millennium. But guess what this is from a military point of view not half as important as you like it to be, as there is no evidence that the nomads ever fielded less biomass (men + horses) than the Chinese, so what military importance can you attach to the superior Chinese population size? It did not translate into superior manpower on the battlefield.

But it comes even worse for your reliance on pseudo-numbers: total GDP is actually pretty meaningless, what rather counts is surplus which is expressed by GDP per capita and in this respect China (like India) was not above the Asian average (see Angus Maddison: The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, p. 263).

Here again the proof is in the pudding: Although Great Britain's GDP was probably still less than that of the much more populous Russia and China, its army and navy still blew both into the weeds in the Crimean War respectively Opium War. Why? Because the Russian and Chinese GDP was of the agricultural type, that is it went from the hand to the mouth, before breakfast Manchu China was rich, but after it poor.

So yes, your figures are largely meaningless, not only because they are all rest on a very flimsy basis (which accidentally the scholars who forward them are the first to acknowledge), but also because you evidently don't understand how to use and interpret them.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 23 September 2010 - 09:26 AM.

[Tibet Libre]

Refusing to accept that an empire of such a size is anything but a first class power because it doesn't fit the model of power you've constructed is simply blatant denial.

It isn't. What counts is not just the size of space, which seems to overawe you, but to what measure and extent you control it, how much and how deep you can project power onto and into it. And in this crucial respect, sedentary empires were heads and shoulders above the nomadic empires because their organization allowed them to maintain themselves even in times of crisis and defeat, whereas nomadic empires came and went in quick succession.

Take an example: In 451, Attila was probably the mightiest man in the world, with an empire stretching from the Rhine to beyond the Wolga, but only three years later his empire was crushed, totally removed from the map, with its Hun remnants fleeing all the way back to the steppe. And this was the fate of many nomadic empires, ultimately of practically every single one.

I can understand the need to hype up the northern nomads as the only worthy enemies ancient China had, but the facts remains that their role in history was mostly destructive and most failed when they entered agricultural lands and had to adapt to a sedentary life-style. So where are the potent high cultures which China ever had to face?

[south]

It isn't. What counts is not just the size of space, which seems to overawe you, but to what measure and extent you control it, how much and how deep you can project power onto and into it. And in this crucial respect, sedentary empires were heads and shoulders above the nomadic empires because their organization allowed them to maintain themselves even in times of crisis and defeat, whereas nomadic empires came and went in quick succession.

It is. If you read my post, there is much more than just the size of space. Again, the Turks controlled the entire steppe, which supports half of the world's horses. And any military expert knows that horses is the major tool of war in the middle ages.

I don't need to bring in any other argument with you. The Turks defeated the White Huns, a power which the Persians lost many battles against, and completely failed to crush; in fact one Persian king was even killed by the White Huns, and after defeating the White huns, the Turks went on to defeat the Persians themselves, that is enough prove that they are a first class world power, greater than the Persians who are roughly equal to the Byzantines.

Take an example: In 451, Attila was probably the mightiest man in the world, with an empire stretching from the Rhine to beyond the Wolga, but only three years later his empire was crushed, totally removed from the map, with its Hun remnants fleeing all the way back to the steppe. And this was the fate of many nomadic empires, ultimately of practically every single one.

Attila the Hun was hardly the mightiest man in the world. He only occupied the Crimean steppe, which the Gokturks ruled as one petty vassal state under the Kazhars. Furthermore, most of Attila's army were already infantry supports, the best units of his army, the Hunnish cavalry only numbered around 20,000 during this time, which is but one small horde within the Gokturk Empire, yet even this small horde was able to put to flight the rest of the Germanic people that ultimately put an end to Rome.

I can understand the need to hype up the northern nomads as the only worthy enemies ancient China had, but the facts remains that their role in history was mostly destructive and most failed when they entered agricultural lands and had to adapt to a sedentary life-style. So where are the potent high cultures which China ever had to face?

The only thing I understand is that you are downplaying nomads who overwhelmed large empires constantly, where one regime managed to conquer 1/5 of the world's lands and over 1/4 of its population and establishing the largest continuous land empire in history.

And why are you still ignoring the fact that there are plenty of large organized, populous, civilized states near China such as Koguryo, Silla, Nanzhao, and Nanyue which simply refuted your arguments?