Rome and China

[lemondude]

The roman empire was invaded by barbarians and collapsed, while the Han empire collapsed due to internal conflicts and later barbarian conquest.

The question is while China was reunited again and again Rome was never seen again.


Is it too different in culture? Is it the language? Is it religion? What made the Rome empire gone forever?

[hellheaven1987]

To be honest, China was "reunited" by non-Han barbarians. The question should be why Charlemagne did not conquer Byzantium.

[removeduser_487563287433]

****ing Hell. Might as well ask, "why history"?

[NotYetRegistered]

Because.. the Chinese continually identified themselves as one people and China was easier to conquer? I don't know, it seems logical, seeing as there were never a lot of Chinese kingdoms.

[lemondude]

****ing Hell. Might as well ask, "why history"?

Not sure, my mistake because this is a current problem. I thought I read about it in the papers the other day.

China was reunited by "Chinese" in the early periods and then barbarian and "Chinese" again and then alternate for a time.

But when Charlemagne made the holy Romans, it wasn't Roman and it didn't even include the Muslim Spain, or North Africa. But it did involve Germany and beyond.

Is the problem, the Frankish tradition of dividing the Empire? Like Clovis? And kings, emperors after him?

@notyetregistered
There were Chinese kingdoms and "empires", between dynasties, sometimes for hundreds of years, but it always becomes one again.

[hellheaven1987]

Because.. the Chinese continually identified themselves as one people and China was easier to conquer?

Haha, no wonder it took hundreds years for Qin to unify China.

But when Charlemagne made the holy Romans, it wasn't Roman and it didn't even include the Muslim Spain, or North Africa. But it did involve Germany and beyond.

So? Ruling class of Sui dynasty was technically not Han Chinese too, and they only had half of China.

Is the problem, the Frankish tradition of dividing the Empire? Like Clovis? And kings, emperors after him?

Perhaps, although we have to remember that Sui dynasty only unified China in less than one generation.

[ray243]

The roman empire was invaded by barbarians and collapsed, while the Han empire collapsed due to internal conflicts and later barbarian conquest.

The question is while China was reunited again and again Rome was never seen again.


Is it too different in culture? Is it the language? Is it religion? What made the Rome empire gone forever?

You be better off asking why did no medieval superpower in the Middle east and Europe manage to "re-unify" all the lands that once belong to the Roman Empire. Why couldn't the Arabian Empire push further into Europe? Why couldn't the Byzantine reconquer more lands during their peak?

[Petrucci]

Chinese identfy themselves as one nation, Roman Empire was composed of many nation without strong desire to live together.

[hellheaven1987]

Chinese identfy themselves as one nation, Roman Empire was composed of many nation without strong desire to live together.

Not during South and North Dynasty however; in fact not even during Warring States and Qin Dynasty (a result why Qin fell in the end).

You be better off asking why did no medieval superpower in the Middle east and Europe manage to "re-unify" all the lands that once belong to the Roman Empire. Why couldn't the Arabian Empire push further into Europe? Why couldn't the Byzantine reconquer more lands during their peak?

More like who was that Medieval superpower? If Charlemagne and his Carolingian Empire, arguable the most super power ever existed in West Europe besides WRE and be romanized enough, could not even achieve such goal, then who could achieve it?

[Ludicus]

The question is while China was reunited again

Because,
Armesto, "Civilizations", page 222
"Foreign invaders have always succumbed to the superiority of Chinese civilization - even when successful on the battlefield against Chinese armies.This happened to the feared barbarian neighbors of the Sung dinasty, to the Mongol conquerors in the thirteenth century, and to the Manchu in the seventeenth. A Mongol dynasty ruled China from 1280 to 1368, and that of the Manchu for over three centuries, and though their Chinese subjects always tended to think of them as foreigners, the rulers became thoroughly imbued with Chinese traditions"

[hellheaven1987]

Because,
Armesto, "Civilizations", page 222
"Foreign invaders have always succumbed to the superiority of Chinese civilization - even when successful on the battlefield against Chinese armies.This happened to the feared barbarian neighbors of the Sung dinasty, to the Mongol conquerors in the thirteenth century, and to the Manchu in the seventeenth. A Mongol dynasty ruled China from 1280 to 1368, and that of the Manchu for over three centuries, and though their Chinese subjects always tended to think of them as foreigners, the rulers became thoroughly imbued with Chinese traditions"

We can however argue the same thing about Frankish Empire, which had been romanized enough in 8th Century.

[Roma_Victrix]

Justinian made a concerted effort to reconquer parts of the old Western Roman Empire, but that was a daunting task even by the mid 6th century. Many of the recognizable Roman institutions and infrastructure in large swaths of the former western half of the empire had by then greatly deteriorated. There were no more great latifundia to rely upon for food supply and taxation. Trade networks, travel, and commerce were all in decline. Things were just broken down in general. In Justinian's recapture of Italy wasn't the general population there taxed to the hilt to support the war effort? It's no wonder the whole operation turned out to be unsustainable from the viewpoint of the treasury. Although many different non-Han nomadic peoples settled in northern China throughout the ages, they never supplanted the local Han populace to the point that new countries were formed based on the incoming ethnic groups. What you had were simply ruling ethnic groups that accepted the superior model of Han civilization, like the Xianbei of Northern Wei or the Tanguts of Western Xia. You could draw a weak comparison, I suppose, with the Germanic kingdoms that modeled their currencies, administrations, and style of royal rule on that of the Western Roman Empire.

[hellheaven1987]

What you had were simply ruling ethnic groups that accepted the superior model of Han civilization, like the Xianbei of Northern Wei or the Tanguts of Western Xia.

That however does not explain why the "superior model of Han civilization" in South China was defeated by semi-barbaric northern dynasties.

[Petrucci]

That however does not explain why the "superior model of Han civilization" in South China was defeated by semi-barbaric northern dynasties.

Because semi-barbaric had better army?

[hellheaven1987]

Because semi-barbaric had better army?

What you mean better army? That can imply many different stuff.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Justinian made a concerted effort to reconquer parts of the old Western Roman Empire, but that was a daunting task even by the mid 6th century. Many of the recognizable Roman institutions and infrastructure in large swaths of the former western half of the empire had by then greatly deteriorated. There were no more great latifundia to rely upon for food supply and taxation. Trade networks, travel, and commerce were all in decline. Things were just broken down in general. In Justinian's recapture of Italy wasn't the general population there taxed to the hilt to support the war effort? It's no wonder the whole operation turned out to be unsustainable from the viewpoint of the treasury. Although many different non-Han nomadic peoples settled in northern China throughout the ages, they never supplanted the local Han populace to the point that new countries were formed based on the incoming ethnic groups. What you had were simply ruling ethnic groups that accepted the superior model of Han civilization, like the Xianbei of Northern Wei or the Tanguts of Western Xia. You could draw a weak comparison, I suppose, with the Germanic kingdoms that modeled their currencies, administrations, and style of royal rule on that of the Western Roman Empire.

Yeah. Justinians Reconquering of Italia was a total desaster. They achieved it, but the prize was that the population hated them and the rest of the infactructures and administration was destroyed. The Byzantine Soldiers had the reputation to be much more barbaric than the Vandals in North Africa and the Goths in Italy. Italy had a phase of recovering und prospering between the reign of Odoaker and Goth-Wars of Justinian, many people forget this.

[ray243]

More like who was that Medieval superpower? If Charlemagne and his Carolingian Empire, arguable the most super power ever existed in West Europe besides WRE and be romanized enough, could not even achieve such goal, then who could achieve it?

It's not surprising that the Caroligian Empire could not reunite all the lands once belong to the Roman Empire. The Carolingians would have a hard time going up against the Byzantine if they outright declare they want to take back all the lands that belongs to the Roman Empire.

If the Byzantine empire with a much superior military organisation could not expand beyond Italy and Africa, what chance does the franks have? After Justinian's disastrous wars, the Byzantine have a much different mindset towards military adventures.

The only civilisation with a desire for more military adventures is the Arabs, and even they have problems invading modern day France and Italy. Their failure to take Constantinople also played a part in preventing the Mediterranean world from reunited under one rule.

[ivan_the_terrible]

We can however argue the same thing about Frankish Empire, which had been romanized enough in 8th Century.

Hardly. There was very little that was 'Roman' about it. The culture and 'administration' (if you can even call it that) was certainly characteristically barbarian/Frankish. Only the title conferred by Pope Leo in 800 had anything 'Roman' about it, but Charles himself appeared to care little for it; he left it off his royal seal, for instance. Neither his contemporaries nor his successors seemed to care for it either, and so it fell into disuse and got passed around petty Italian princes for over a century after Louis' death (and before the Ottonian ascendancy in East Francia).

Charles and none of his immediate successors also made no attempt to institute anything 'Roman' in the way of government and administration. Instead, the whole 'empire' operated along the Frankish/'barbarian' principles of kinship, kingship, and feud. There was no 'government' in any imperial sense. At least Clovis had pretended to be Roman, walking around in a toga calling himself 'consul' (at the Byzantine Emperor's permission). The Carolingians didn't even bother.

Certainly there was no conscious emulation of 'Romanness' in the same vein as the Ottonians attempted later -- the Ottonian 'empire' is probably a better analogy to what happened with Chinese 'barbarian' emperors. Think of Otto III, who actually went to live in Rome and made every effort to look the part of the Emperor. Of course, the Romans kicked him out and he never came back... but that's besides the point slightly.

So Charlemagne may have been 'Emperor' in the city of Rome (and possibly in Byzantium in western eyes, given that a woman ruled in Byzantium for the first time, and no one was quite sure how legitimate that was). But he was King of the Franks in Francia, King of the Lombards in Lombardia, etc. The coronation was likely intended by Leo purely as a local Roman (civic) political play, and it's main significance was that it revived the title which later German kings used to claim 'Roman' legitimacy.

[hellheaven1987]

Charles and none of his immediate successors also made no attempt to institute anything 'Roman' in the way of government and administration. Instead, the whole 'empire' operated along the Frankish/'barbarian' principles of kinship, kingship, and feud. There was no 'government' in any imperial sense. At least Clovis had pretended to be Roman, walking around in a toga calling himself 'consul' (at the Byzantine Emperor's permission). The Carolingians didn't even bother.

On the other hand we can also argue that kinship, kingship and feud is really not much different than Roman's idea of kinship, emperor and clients. Furthermore we also know that blood relation was not necessary a guarantee of succession in early Carolingian period, as Charles Martel himself had appointed new dukes even if the old dukes had successors.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. Culture - maybe, individualism might be more deeply embedded whereas the Han were willing to trade servitude for safety and competence.

2. Geography - primarily; I'm not that familiar with Chinese terrain, but Europe makes it easy to establish and defend borders around the terrain make-up.

3. Religion - the Caesars seemed to realize the divisive nature inherent in this aspect, and tried unity based on a mandatory Imperial cult, though were relatively permissive to to all others that didn't challenge it. Abrahamic off-shoots weren't that tolerant.