[Yun]

The second book is wrong. The unified Qin dynasty was from 221 BC to 206 BC.

[Yun]

I think the mistake arose because the Qin kingdom deposed the last Zhou king in 256 BC (this was done by one of Qin Shihuang's predecessors), while Xiang Yu was only defeated by Liu Bang in 202 BC.

Therefore, it is more correct to say that Zhou ended in 256 BC but Qin only began in 221 BC, and that Qin ended in 206 BC but Han only began in 202 BC. In between, there were periods of civil war without a unified dynasty.

[tianzhuwoye]

Superdumb question: were the Qin before and after 221 BC two separate states?

[Yun]

No, it just growed (paraphrasing Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin).

[Sephodwyrm]

The Qin was established as a state in 770 BC after the patriarch escorted King Ping of Zhou to his new capital at Luo Yi.

The Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Between the vacuum period of 256 BC to 221 BC it was the road to unification with no central authority.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I don't see why 256 b.c. can't be the start, at that time Qin was already the dominant state, receiving the mandate from Zhou. the Tang started in 618, it also didn't unite China, in fact its not even the strongest state yet.

[Yun]

Same thing for the Sui - it started in 581 but didn't unify the empire until 589.

I suppose the difficulty is that historians can't consider the Qin kings before Qin Shihuang as emperors, and they always emphasise that Ying Zheng was the first emperor. So it's confusing to list him as the fourth one in the dynasty.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Its legitimacy that count, Tang received the abdication of Sui directly. The legitimation of the age of fragmentation is not clear. Thus the legitimate start is only proclaimed until the reunification.
However, Qin received it from the Zhou in 256 and should begin from there.

[snowybeagle]

warhead, on Apr 26 2005, 11:33 AM, said:

However, Qin received it from the Zhou in 256 and should begin from there.

But Qin did not claim the title of the Son of Heaven from the Zhou in 256BC.

Qin's own chronicles marked the distinction with Ying Zheng taking the title of ShiHuang, meaning the first emperor, a significant difference from a mere "king".

Hu Hai succeeded as Er Shi, the second emperor.

Zi Ying who succeeded Hu Hai abandoned the imperial titles and resumed the royal title of king, when it was clear the empire was no more.

[tianzhuwoye]

warhead, on Apr 26 2005, 11:33 AM, said:

Its legitimacy that count, Tang received the abdication of Sui directly. The legitimation of the age of fragmentation is not clear. Thus the legitimate start is only proclaimed until the reunification.
However, Qin received it from the Zhou in 256 and should begin from there.

Liking this observation- the only problem with choosing this as a beginning might be, like Seph said, that the Qin state had been around for hundreds of years before 256BC.

Yun's on point- a lot of these dates are conveniences applied by later historians, and for instance 221BC is now a big deal for "Chinese" history as a whole but maybe not actually the 'beginning' of a new country. When the Qin or the Sui or the Qing and so on started and when they 'took over China' are two different things. The two books GoldnCrown mentioned seem to be looking back and ordering history from two separate viewpoints. Neither is really 'wrong,' just depends on what you're trying to say.

Quote

Qin's own chronicles marked the distinction with Ying Zheng taking the title of ShiHuang, meaning the first emperor, a significant difference from a mere "king".

Thanks for this- this is pretty key. Was Shihuangdi trying to say that the Qin were two different nations before and after the fall of the rest of the players that made the cut into the warring states, or did they just growed?

[snowybeagle]

tianzhuwoye, on Apr 26 2005, 11:52 AM, said:

Was Shihuangdi trying to say that the Qin were two different nations before and after the fall of the rest of the players that made the cut into the warring states, or did they just growed?

More of "just growed", and definitely not two "different" nations.

To put things into perspective, consider the history of China prior to that.

When Shang replaced Xia as the overlord, Shang was already an existing tribe, but it became "elevated" as the "hegemonist".

Similarly, when Zhou replaced Shang, the Zhou was formerly a "vassal" state to Shang, with the rulers taking the title of "XiBo Hou", or Marquis of XiBo.

It was on the one hand a continuation of an existing dynasty,
and on the other hand an "ascension" of the status of the dynasty into a "greater" entity.

This can be seen in that some of the ancestors, especially the immediate father and grandfather of the first "King", were conferred posthumous royal titles which they did not have in their own lifetime nor immediately after their deaths.

Think of the Qin Dynasty after unification as an airline which managed to takeover all its rivals to gain a monopoly, and then undergoing internal restructuring to consolidate its operations, as well as retitling its CEO. It retained the same name and corporate registration and history of past CEOs, but while at the same time, it is writing a new chapter in its history. Not a completely accurate analogy but I hope you get the idea.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"But Qin did not claim the title of the Son of Heaven from the Zhou in 256BC."

Did he not? Qin Zhao Xiang Wang claimed himself emperor(Di) along with the Qi as emperors of the east and west decades before Qin Shi Huang Di. The title of King itself is a challenge to the son of heaven.


"Qin's own chronicles marked the distinction with Ying Zheng taking the title of ShiHuang, meaning the first emperor, a significant difference from a mere "king"."

Thats just a title, not the legitimacy of a dynasty, the Zhou is also just a king, is it not a legitimate dynasty? The dynasty is still continued from the house of Qin which already proclaimed itself independent as early as the 4th century b.c. and already received the mandate from Zhou in 256 b.c.

[snowybeagle]

warhead, on Apr 26 2005, 12:16 PM, said:

Did he not? Qin Zhao Xiang Wang claimed himself emperor(Di) along with the Qi as emperors of the east and west decades before Qin Shi Huang Di. The title of King itself is a challenge to the son of heaven.

It used to be a challenge, which was why the feudal lords were adamant against the ruler of the State of Chu using it in the Spring Autumn period.

However, the title of king was later "cheapened" when just about every ruler began to use with impunity - Wu, Yue, Chu, and others.

As for the "Di" title, it was more of a reflection of the hegemonist/overlord status rather than the new title "Huang Di" which began only with Qin ShiHuang.

The "Shi" character in the title made it pretty clear it was marking a new beginning.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"It used to be a challenge, which was why the feudal lords were adamant against the ruler of the State of Chu using it in the Spring Autumn period.

However, the title of king was later "cheapened" when just about every ruler began to use with impunity - Wu, Yue, Chu, and others."

Yet the title emperor was also "cheapened" during the fragmentation periods and post sui periods. Its the worst in the ten kingdoms when emperors are so common that they could rise or fall anytime.
I still haven't seen a source that claimed the Qin haven't already declared themselves son of heaven before the 221b.c.


"As for the "Di" title, it was more of a reflection of the hegemonist/overlord status rather than the new title "Huang Di" which began only with Qin ShiHuang."

Yes, but there really is NO equivalent of the Chinese word Huang Di in western language, I always thought the term emperor is understating Huang Di. In the west, emperor is simply somebody that owns an imperium and is little different from a king. In China there can only be 1 huang di, kang xi made that clear when the western letters mistakenly translate their soverign as Huang Di.